Palin's speech was....

[LisaKinVA]

One reply I haven't seen on this "dig" -- was where it originated.

 

Obama's camp, on the day Palin was announced as McCain's VP, they ignored the fact that she was the Governor of Alaska, and instead chose to demean her by referring to her as the "former mayor of a town of 9,000 people." That was the official FIRST response, which Obama later referred to as a something essentially an over zealous staffer came up with -- it wasn't how he really felt.

 

However, it was one of a handful of major themes that the media glommed onto and repeated ad-nauseum from political show, to political show, to late-night comedy hours, and within newspaper after paper.

 

IMHO, It was a fair comparison -- and a fair response -- given the amount of vitrolic punditry thrown at her for being from a small town and a small state (population-wise), and the audience to which she was primarilly speaking.

 

Personally, I really, really, get sick of hearing liberal dems (for not all dems treated her this way), parroting the same lines about Palin's experience -- when they have 3 fingers pointing at them for their #1 ticket. And, I swear, if I hear, "do we want someone with so little experience one heart-beat away from the presidency" again, compared to day one of the presidency, I'll have to break out the vomit emoticon.:D

 

Obama could just as easilly drop dead after inaugration as McCain -- and then we'll be stuck with Biden. Yeah, I get the chills just thinking about it. He's all about change.

 

And that US cover was inflamatory. When a representative of US weekly was asked about the "lies" it refferred to (because the inference is they were going to talk about HER lies and HER scandals), they said they were referring to the lies, etc. being perpetrated in the blogosphere, which we should remember were being reported in MSM as potential "truth" or even downright true (hence retractions)... the article itself might have been fairly balanced, but the headline gave a totally different impression.

[Saille]

Why do you think the federal government should fund public radio and tv? There are radio and tv stations that prove profitable, so we know it can be done. Why does NPR need federal money to keep it going?

 

Because commercial tv and radio stations are funded by advertising, which is paid for by corporations, and those corporations have a conflict of interest when it comes to the American people being provided with accurate, complete information. Most television outlets are owned by the same handful of companies. There's a thread on the board about personal responsibility, and to a certain extent I agree, but this setup sure skews the information people have access to when they're trying to make decisions, no?

 

Also, I think it's very important to point out here that Reagan did us irreparable harm in the 80's by deregulating television. The lines between entertainment and advertising so blurred that people don't know what they're looking at anymore. It started with children's television, but if you watch any common network morning show, you'll see that it permeates adult television as well...and not everyone is aware of it. Deregulating television and allowing programs to be cross-marketing for products showed a completely baseless trust in organizations whose first priority is making money. Period.

[Saille]

Oh, I can't stop with just one point. :) Down deep, my dh and I are very generous. Almost to a fault. But, our generosity is muted by the way the federal government spends OUR hard-earned money. Charity is one thing, but we feel the gov't is allowing some programs to be abused. The gov't clearly can't manage the programs efficiently. So when we hear there are going to be *more* gov't programs, we cringe. We give freely to charities that have a board of directors, accountability, and a financial sheet we can see.

 

See, here's how it works at my house. I have much more time to give than money, so much more of my time is spent volunteering, vs. donating. I see important resources going to pot, and I see that because I'm compensating for the lack of them.

 

Libraries are a good example of this. Parents with low literacy levels who go into a library needing and seeking guidance do not have any idea that none of the librarians on the children's floor are actually children's librarians. It saves money to have librarians with non-specific training who can be rotated, but they know nothing at all about children's literature. When a parent is already somewhat cowed and stepping far outside their comfort level, the last thing they need is a librarian who acts annoyed by their questions, not because the questions are wrong, but because she's embarrassed that she doesn't know the answer. The parents in question aren't aware of this underlying issue, of course. They feel humiliated, and their chances of fully utilizing the library as a resource decrease accordingly. In the meantime, underfunded libraries are giving away (guess what) donated Happy Meal toys as prizes for the summer reading program.

 

While all this is going on, my government is spending billions of dollars blowing up families on the other side of the world, and my kids and I are digging for pocket change to put in the jar at church and replace little Iraqi children's library books. Then people tell me that funding libraries more adequately is the equivalent of a handout, and is fiscally irresponsible. I think that's insulting bunk. Anyone who says that has a bookstore budget. Why can't they grasp what their lives would be like if they did not?

[Nestof3]

One of the first things Bush did was start cutting federal funding for libraries, museums, and public radio and TV. These are the great public levelers, as any homeschooler knows. You could live in a pretty lousy school district and still be relatively well-educated, if you had these resources at your disposal. Why would anyone who purports to want smaller government and a self-sufficient, go-getter population deprive people of these essential tools?

 

Well, on some issues, you really need to ask if this is something that should be funded at the federal or state level. There are some issues that benefit all of the US (such as defense) and these should be funded by federal tax dollars. Individual libraries should be paid for out of local taxes. Unless it's the DC museums we are talking about, I see no reason why federal tax dollars should be involved.

 

I do have to comment, though, that just because there is a fine library or museum, some people still will not avail themselves to it. If all people want to do is hang out on the computers and IM people when they go to the library, I bet the librarians are not going to be very interested in stocking the library with fine books, and I bet the community is not going to want to see their taxes support it.

 

There is information to be found even in a mediocre library. In this country, there really is no excuse to be uneducated. It really is a choice.

[Melinda in VT]

At a recent fundraiser House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called Obama "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."

 

So are non-Christians afraid of this too?

 

I don't subscribe to dominionism, but as a Christian I believe that God can raise up leaders to bring good into this world and that God cares about the affairs of man. If God wasn't ultimately in charge of this world, I would be very scared indeed.

 

As to Palin and her theology, I'll let her answer for herself. But I don't think she has anything to be ashamed of. ;)

 

I believe that God can raise up leaders, yes.

 

But it makes me cringe when anyone on either side of the political fence presumes to know the will of God for our country politically.

 

For me, a big part of "walking humbly with your God" is being willing to at least consider the possibility that we have it all wrong and that the world looks very different from God's eyes.

[Kathleen in VA]

I don't know if other nonChristians are made afraid by that comment (I'm not), but I do think it's an inappropriate comment. If Pelosi or Obama were also linked to Dominionist groups like Palin, though, Pelosi's comment would be scary as well.

 

Can you post a link that supports the notion that Palin is linked to Dominionist groups? Maybe they support her, but I'm not sure she has any control over that. Where is the support that she is "linked" to Dominionist groups? I've never heard that.

[Heather in Neverland]

I am sure that Senator Obama did a fine job as an organizer. I am sure he put his heart into it. He seems like a gentleman, is obviously very smart, and a nice man.

 

For a few years I was on the board of a large medical charity in IL. What I did was lobby to get a medical research bill passed but I also read most of the research papers published in the field and mc-ed a few medical conferences that the researchers spoke at. I took pre-med in college and that is what allowed me to do that. I was up on all the cutting edge research and had a neurologist and a psychologist use me as a support, resource to help the parents of their patients understand their child's illness and treatment, I did the hand holding, putting it in layman's terms, a voice of experience from their point of view, etc.... All of that gave me great experience but it did not make me a medical researcher or a doctor. It is the same with comparing a community organizer with a mayor or a governor.

 

I worked a lot in politics, lobbied to get a medical research bill passed. President Clinton signed that bill into law. I have been around all kinds of politicians and seen how they wheel and deal first hand. Obama and Biden, McCain and Palin do not take any of this personally. They know it is a big game and they are all good players. They know how to attack and counterattack and attack so that it does not look like an attack. For the most part they enjoy it, they don't enjoy it when their family members who are not players are dragged into it, but they themselves like the game.

 

I think all of us liberal or conservative would enjoy the election process if we understood that it is just a big strategy game and not taken personally by the candidates and therefore should not be taken personally by us. I would not be surprised if Obama does not come up with a counter attack on the community service comments. He has to that is the way the game is played by every political party on the planet. He and his staff are brilliant enough, energized enough to play both defense and offense when it comes to election politics.

 

The outcome of the process is a stronger elected official. Obama needs to build that strength because if he gets in office he will be hit all the time. The election process helps these people grow thick skins so they can play the hard ball needed when wielding great power. It is kind of like the butterfly fighting its way out of the cocoon. If the butterfly does not fight it will not live, if it is helped or the process some how made easier it will die. The politics being played now is for the winning candidate the process that gives him or her the strength to fly once they have the prize. It is needed training.

 

 

 

 

:leaving: I wrote this knowing that I might get negative rep due to the fact that this is an emotional subject. I figured that this tho might help some and so I think it is worth the risk. In the light of this is being a very emotional subject any neg rep will be view by me as an emotional response and unless you leave your name not much attention will be given to it.

 

 

Here is some POSITIVE rep coming your way!!!!

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

Can you post a link that supports the notion that Palin is linked to Dominionist groups? Maybe they support her, but I'm not sure she has any control over that. Where is the support that she is "linked" to Dominionist groups? I've never heard that.

 

http://dogemperor.newsvine.com/_news/2008/08/29/1803647-sarah-palin-dominionist-stalking-horse

[PiCO]

Considering that several liberal CNN commentators made a point to say how authentic they thought she came across. :tongue_smilie:

 

That's kind of my point. Politicians usually sound canned to me. I thought Obama sounded pretty similar. They both have excellent speech writers.

[BlueGator]

There is information to be found even in a mediocre library. In this country, there really is no excuse to be uneducated. It really is a choice.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

When we as a nation, town, family or person have choices we have to take responsibility for our actions and the consequences that come from those choices.

[Heather in Neverland]

As far comparing his community organizing with her being a mayor? When he was a community organizer she was a beauty queen. When he was serving as president of the Harvard law review she was a sportscaster. When he was leading voter registration drives, teaching Constitutional law and working as a civil rights attorney she was serving on the city council. He was elected to the Illinois state senate (13th district), she was elected mayor. EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND people live in that district compared to 6,500 or so who lived in that small town in Alaska at the time. Obama was sworn into the national Senate in 2005. Over 12,400,000 people live in Illinois. Palin was sworn in as governor in December of 2006, the population of Alaska is around 627,000 people.

 

You want to make comparisons, that's just fine but let's try a little accuracy when making those comparisons. It doesn't exactly play the same in the real world as it does at the RNC.

 

 

Can someone explain to me WHY we or the media or even the candidates themselves keep drawing comparisons between Obama and Palin? She is NOT the one running for president for goodness sake!

 

How about we compare the experience of Obama and McCain which would be a comparison that is actually apples to apples since THEY are the two running for president???

[Saille]

Here is one more thing I can't understand. Some of the wealthiest people in the US are supporting Obama and his new programs, right? If he's only going to tax the *rich* and businesses, don't these people have the most to lose? How does Oprah think she is going to fare when her personal and business incomes get taxed more? And....if all those rich hollywood folks are so incredibly generous, why can't they live on $200,000/yr like us middle-income families? Would they support a candidate who *really* believed in the redistribution of wealth? They know that somehow the rich will stay rich, their companies won't go broke, and it will be left to the middle and lower income families to fend for ourselves. If big business gets taxed more to pay for more federal programs, rest assured that they will pass the savings on to us.

 

Oprah's a sore point with me. I feel she's lost touch with common folks. But yeah, I think Obama's whole point is that if folks that rich paid a *proportionate* amount of tax, we'd all be a lot better off. The idea that they'd then be all mercenary and screw us to the wall as punishment was sort of underlines the point that increased accountability is needed, IMO. Why would we let them get away with baseless price hikes, as a government or as shoppers? And I think it's sort of silly to denigrate people who are actually willing to make that contribution, as if they're just dupes for being willing to contribute fairly. Again, why would they not?

[Nestof3]

Just over the top 6% of earners earn *one third* of the nation's income.

 

It's not the nation's income -- it belongs to the individual people earning it.

 

Rather than having class envy and saying those wealthy should be paying more in taxes, why do people not first look at the governments to spend more wisely?

 

If you owned a business, and your profit margin began closing, would you immediately cut the salaries of the top earners? Would you fire people? Or, would you look for leakage, find ways to cut out wasted spending, etc? Now, the guy who plays Free Cell all day on his computer when he's supposed to be making sales calls -- the guy who gets a car allowance for the sales calls he's supposed to make -- he's getting canned.

 

(yes, we had a guy like this when I worked at an electrical testing company).

 

Then, you find our you're running three ads in different yellow pages, so you cut that because you only get a couple of calls a year from phone books anyway.

 

You find out your secretary is making trips to the office store once a week and is gone for one hour each time. Since you have to pay her wages while she's there and mileage, you have her order from Staples online once a month -- and you get free shipping that way.

[Nestof3]

He is saying that if a company files bankruptcy that a CEO who has been with the company two years shouldn't be able to walk away from a company with millions while the employees lose their pensions.

 

It happened to my dad.

 

But..I guess that's great YOUR dad worked the system, my dad worked his rear off...and is still working because his pension is gone.

 

"retirement entitlement"

 

That's nice.

 

Are you saying companies shouldn't keep their promises?

 

I suppose personal responsibility isn't required of companies and CEOs.

 

I understand that now, and I think it is clear in my first post that I did not catch that the reference was to CEOs getting big bonuses while the workers did not get their pension. Of course I don't agree with that.

 

And about my dad working the system. The bankruptcy was filed 15 years ago. My point was that he could have spent the next 15 years slowly paying off what he owed instead of bailing out. Creditors would rather get a little over time than nothing at all. I just don't think one should be able to file bankruptcy because of credit card debt.

 

The retirement entitlement statement was clearly made in the context of filing for social security but still being able to work. Why do Americans feel entitled to stop working when they are 62? Why make the statement "they won't let me work more?"

[Nestof3]

Libraries are a good example of this. Parents with low literacy levels who go into a library needing and seeking guidance do not have any idea that none of the librarians on the children's floor are actually children's librarians. It saves money to have librarians with non-specific training who can be rotated, but they know nothing at all about children's literature. When a parent is already somewhat cowed and stepping far outside their comfort level, the last thing they need is a librarian who acts annoyed by their questions, not because the questions are wrong, but because she's embarrassed that she doesn't know the answer. The parents in question aren't aware of this underlying issue, of course. They feel humiliated, and their chances of fully utilizing the library as a resource decrease accordingly. In the meantime, underfunded libraries are giving away (guess what) donated Happy Meal toys as prizes for the summer reading program.

 

Are these situations you actually encounter when you volunteer? What ever happened to just taking your kids to the library, letting them browse through the children's section and pick out a few books. Does this really need to be made into a science? Most libraries have lists of award-winning books, most school teachers would be glad to give recommendations. You can also get the AR reading lists from school.

 

Does a person actually need to be told that to improve literacy, they should read?

[Melinda in VT]

It's not the nation's income -- it belongs to the individual people earning it.

 

Rather than having class envy and saying those wealthy should be paying more in taxes, why do people not first look at the governments to spend more wisely?

 

If you owned a business, and your profit margin began closing, would you immediately cut the salaries of the top earners? Would you fire people? Or, would you look for leakage, find ways to cut out wasted spending, etc? Now, the guy who plays Free Cell all day on his computer when he's supposed to be making sales calls -- the guy who gets a car allowance for the sales calls he's supposed to make -- he's getting canned.

 

(yes, we had a guy like this when I worked at an electrical testing company).

 

Then, you find our you're running three ads in different yellow pages, so you cut that because you only get a couple of calls a year from phone books anyway.

 

You find out your secretary is making trips to the office store once a week and is gone for one hour each time. Since you have to pay her wages while she's there and mileage, you have her order from Staples online once a month -- and you get free shipping that way.

 

I agree with you that there is a lot of wasted spending in the government. Our current system, where each member of Congress feels pressure to bring home government money for his or her constituents in order to get re-elected, works against streamlined budgets.

 

However, our national debt is huge and is a national security risk. At times like these, you pinch pennies and increase income. (To use your example above, you raise your rates in addition to ordering online from Staples.)

[Kelli in TN]

Well, on some issues, you really need to ask if this is something that should be funded at the federal or state level. There are some issues that benefit all of the US (such as defense) and these should be funded by federal tax dollars. Individual libraries should be paid for out of local taxes. Unless it's the DC museums we are talking about, I see no reason why federal tax dollars should be involved.

 

.

 

 

I do have to agree with this. I believe states, counties and cities should be taking care of their own museums, libraries, parks, etc.

 

I think federal funding for television and radio is wrong as well. The government does not belong in the media business.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

The government does not belong in the media business.

 

Quick- somebody call Fox News. :D

[Kelli in TN]

Quick- somebody call Fox News. :D

 

Smart Aleck! ;)

[Jumping In Puddles]

Make sure you apply that standard to the Obamas.

 

I have seen a number of posts praising Sarah Palin for raising a son so patriotic that he is headed to Iraq and NOT once have I seen "and also let's not forget Biden who also has a son headed to Iraq". I don't see the difference.

 

Of course, just because you agree with one side doesn't mean that you don't see fault with your own candidate.

[Saille]

nestof3, I see what you are saying, and yet it seems to me that the federal government has already made it clear that they see fit to intervene in education, so I'm not sure your conclusion is logical.

 

There is information to be found even in a mediocre library. In this country, there really is no excuse to be uneducated. It really is a choice.

 

Yes, but a heavily influenced one. One of the nice things about homeschooling is that our kids feel free to evince interest in academic subjects without being the target of teasing or bullying. That's not just an attitude among children, but among adults, as well. It's reinforced by every magazine, trashy kids' serial book, television program, radio show and commercial. A child surrounded by unabashedly ignorant adults is at a disadvantage, so it really seems like having an accessible, well-funded library that casts a wide net in terms of outreach is necessary to combat our misinformed, poorly informed, consumerist culture.

 

I think it's probably unrealistic to levy an unfunded national mandate like NCLB and expect that states will simultaneously be able to compensate for decreased federal funding for libraries and museums. States slashed their own budgets for those things, and NCLB was a big factor.

[Nestof3]

(To use your example above, you raise your rates in addition to ordering online from Staples.)

 

Yes, but, since my husband is self-employed, I suppose I see things through my own experience. So, I'll share from this. He mows lawns for a living. Every lawn he mows has a house on it that is nicer and larger than ours. I am willing to bet that every lawn he mows is owned by someone with a greater income than ours. My husband charges according to the size of the lawn and how long it takes him to care for it. He does have to give price increases from time to time -- fertilizer prices have increased, he charged a small fuel surcharge when the fuel prices spiked (we removed it from the last bill), etc. These are applied not based on the thinking of "Well, those people make a lot of money -- they should pay more" We also don't approach it as "Well, these five customers make tons of money -- one's the owner of the Honda dealership, etc etc, so let's make them pay twice as much as the retired, elderly couple.

 

You have to manage a business so that you have to make a profit when it's all said and done, and yes, price increases are sometimes necessary, but we also operate under the ethics that we try to make wise spending decisions.

 

Obviously, this country is going deeper and deeper into debt and I don't agree that the answer is to make those making more money pay more. This country is living beyond its means.

[Nestof3]

nestof3, I see what you are saying, and yet it seems to me that the federal government has already made it clear that they see fit to intervene in education, so I'm not sure your conclusion is logical.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by nestof3

There is information to be found even in a mediocre library. In this country, there really is no excuse to be uneducated. It really is a choice.

 

Yes, but a heavily influenced one. One of the nice things about homeschooling is that our kids feel free to evince interest in academic subjects without being the target of teasing or bullying. That's not just an attitude among children, but among adults, as well. It's reinforced by every magazine, trashy kids' serial book, television program, radio show and commercial. A child surrounded by unabashedly ignorant adults is at a disadvantage, so it really seems like having an accessible, well-funded library that casts a wide net in terms of outreach is necessary to combat our misinformed, poorly informed, consumerist culture.

 

I think it's probably unrealistic to levy an unfunded national mandate like NCLB and expect that states will simultaneously be able to compensate for decreased federal funding for libraries and museums. States slashed their own budgets for those things, and NCLB was a big factor.

 

 

Yes, and this is what I never liked about Bush. He overstepped his bounds in my opinion in the area of education.

 

I hear what you are saying about libraries, but the government cannot keep these "unabashedly ignorant" people from having children, and I really don't see extra library funding as a way to counteract poor parenting. Again, I'm not opposed to libraries -- I think they are a great thing as long as the people who use them care for the books and take responsibility for them. I just believe it is something that should be funded at the local level.

[Jumping In Puddles]

Who said it was serious? Of course, not being serious doesn't make it not true and it wasn't so much commentary as a series of clips. The clips speak for themselves.

 

Just ftr-I don't think she was showing off her family any more or less than any other candidate.

 

Did you see the Daily Show last night? :lol: The interview with Newt Gingrich was great and that is usually the segment I like the least.

 

And yes, the clips speak for themselves. Humorous commentary by Jon but the clips are not taken out of context like a lot of bush clips are (for example the "I believe fish and people can co-exist peacefully" comment that is funny when you show only that part and not so much when you see the whole speech.

[Saille]

Are these situations you actually encounter when you volunteer? What ever happened to just taking your kids to the library, letting them browse through the children's section and pick out a few books. Does this really need to be made into a science? Most libraries have lists of award-winning books, most school teachers would be glad to give recommendations. You can also get the AR reading lists from school.

 

Does a person actually need to be told that to improve literacy, they should read?

 

Absolutely, yes. Librarians who don't know kiddie lit are tremendously unhelpful and parents have trouble getting what they need as a result. I had problems with this myself, despite being a certified teacher with a particular passion for kiddie lit. A teacher can recommend Leo Leonni books until she's blue, but if the parent goes to the library and the librarian has NO CLUE who Leo Leonni is, and the children's books are casually grouped...forget it. Small children cannot wait for forty-five minutes while you page through the entire children's section book by book. Also, librarians with no clue how to deal with children make the children's section an unpleasant place to be, which further cuts the amount of time you have to get things done. And if I feel this way, how must someone who's already very nervous about being in a library in the first place feel? This can be less of a problem in small village libraries, where a librarian knows his/her neighbors and deals with everyone in one room, but in larger town and city libraries, it's a killer.

 

That's a silly question. Of course they don't need to be told. But if you come from a family of functional illiterates, the task can seem insurmountable. You don't know what to do or where to start, and you're afraid you're going to screw up your kids. The results are in: public schools are not producing life-long readers. To see on a homeschooling board, which is full of people who didn't want to entrust their own enriched children to public school, someone claiming that teachers will adequately compensate for a disadvantaged environment...I don't understand that.

[Saille]

Yes, and this is what I never liked about Bush. He overstepped his bounds in my opinion in the area of education.

 

I hear what you are saying about libraries, but the government cannot keep these "unabashedly ignorant" people from having children, and I really don't see extra library funding as a way to counteract poor parenting. Again, I'm not opposed to libraries -- I think they are a great thing as long as the people who use them care for the books and take responsibility for them. I just believe it is something that should be funded at the local level.

 

'Kay, but I'm not talking about a minority here, I'm talking about a majority of Americans who have a cultivated distaste for being bookish. The majority of Americans think they are good parents. They joke when they don't understand their kids' fifth grade homework, or how the election process works, and they do not read for information or pleasure in large numbers. People who do not grasp that there is a problem are not going to fund it at the local level.

[Nestof3]

The results are in: public schools are not producing life-long readers. To say that teachers are going to compensate for a disadvantaged upbringing, when you didn't want to trust your own enriched child to them...I don't understand that.

 

This is actually exactly what I'm saying -- no school or library is really going to make up for lack of parenting. Schools are not producing life-long readers because some people simply do not like reading. I also don't think the library is going to be able to compensate for this. Why read when you have game systems and television waiting for you at home?

 

I guess we have a very organized library because all of the Leo Lionni books are in the picture book section with other authors with the last name starting with "L" with labels on the sides with the first three letters, so his books would be "LIO."

[Nestof3]

They joke when they don't understand their kids' fifth grade homework, or how the election process works, and they do not read for information or pleasure in large numbers. People who do not grasp that there is a problem are not going to fund it at the local level.

 

There is a possibility, though, that these adults are functioning fine and know all they need to know. I don't think people have to be bookish.

 

I still think the problem is with home life and NOT the educational system. The reason no one has found the solution is because the government cannot fix the family.

[Saille]

These are applied not based on the thinking of "Well, those people make a lot of money -- they should pay more" We also don't approach it as "Well, these five customers make tons of money -- one's the owner of the Honda dealership, etc etc, so let's make them pay twice as much as the retired, elderly couple.

 

But you have to look your customers in the eye. They are members of your local community. Large corporations that provide consumer goods and services absolutely DO do it that way, and that's my point. The question they ask is not, "What's a fair price?", but "What will the market bear?" And the income of a few people at the top is inflated accordingly, without the average worker benefiting.

[Saille]

There is a possibility, though, that these adults are functioning fine and know all they need to know. I don't think people have to be bookish.

 

I still think the problem is with home life and NOT the educational system. The reason no one has found the solution is because the government cannot fix the family.

 

What a funny argument to make on a Classical homeschooling board!

[LisaKinVA]

As someone who has ghost-written for political, well-known people (from 1991 until 2002 when I said I was DONE with politics), it can't be done well without a good bit of input from the people you are writing for. (Yeah, I've done a wide variety of things in my life... almost unreal.)

 

In many cases, its the speaker's very own words, but put into a sensible order. The speech writer has to spend time with the person, talk to them, get to know them, if possible watch and read other things they have said and done. The speech has to sound like the person who is making it -- and that is difficult to do.

 

Writing a speech for oneself -- especially a dramatic and moving speech -- is no easy task either. But, if one is gifted in that way it isn't like moving a mountain.

 

I don't think less of a person because they can't write a great speech -- very few people can. I do find people who write a good speech impressive, because I know how difficult it can be (either for myself, or for someone else).

 

I also don't think less of a person because they went to an "easy to get into school" or have an "easy" degree, or even went to multiple schools. I don't think more of a person because of where they went to school either. It's what the person has done with that education, throughout their life that creates who they are -- not a few years of their young adult life.

 

My dh and I met on the college debate circuit. He went to a military academy. I routinely defeated him, not because I was smarter or went to a better school -- but because I was simply gifted that way. So please don't ask me to do spherical calculus -- and don't ask him to give a speech :D

 

So, to borrow a bit from MLK, let us not judge a politicican because of the school they went to, or whether or not they can write their own speech -- or merely deliver one -- but by the content of their character, their actions and deeds during the course of their lives. For it is what a person does, not the color of their skin, or the fitness of their figure, or well-coiffed hair and winsome smile that we ultimately have to live with.

 

And that should be based upon the ideals, dreams and hopes -- the vision we have for our country and ourselves.

 

I don't believe any of us wants what is BAD for America, we pretty much all agree on the kind of America we want to live in -- it's how we achieve that where we disagree.

 

I *do* like Palin. I am inspired by Obama. I was surprized by McCain last night... Biden is well... Biden. I can't wait until the debates, and am glad there is energy and excitement for all out there -- it sure beats the apathy we've had for so long (myself included -- dh and I didn't even bother to vote in the primary:tongue_smilie:).

 

Well, off to finish up our fall testing...

 

P.S. I may not have gone to Harvard (FAR from it, even I snicker about the school I went to, because it was the least revolting of the three choices I was given by my parents), but I did beat teams from Harvard, Wake Forest, U of Kentucky, Dartmouth, USC, Georgetown... USNA, USMMA, USMA, well, you get the picture... but that was then.

[Saille]

This is actually exactly what I'm saying -- no school or library is really going to make up for lack of parenting. Schools are not producing life-long readers because some people simply do not like reading. I also don't think the library is going to be able to compensate for this. Why read when you have game systems and television waiting for you at home?

 

I guess we have a very organized library because all of the Leo Lionni books are in the picture book section with other authors with the last name starting with "L" with labels on the sides with the first three letters, so his books would be "LIO."

 

Yep, the one we attend right now is like that...but the bigger one in my last town, was as I described above, and it was awful. Imagine if you didn't know who Leo Leonni was, and you sort of felt like a poser for being there in the first place? I left there so mad I was in tears, several times. We used to drive fifteen miles out of our way to go to a small country library instead, but not everyone can do that, you know?

 

I think the seductiveness of game systems and TVs is such that the library needs to sell itself. Loudly. The companies that make these products won't hesitate to use their bully pulpit, so to say, "Well, the library is there if people want it, it's their own fault if they don't use it" is taking the short view. Do we really want our kids standing alone in a desert of ignorance for the rest of their lives, or would it be nice for them to have some company?

 

And I edited one of the comments you quoted upthread, btw. I looked at it and realized it was personalized, directed AT you instead of about the topic, and I didn't mean to do that. Sorry. ;)

[Kathleen in VA]

http://dogemperor.newsvine.com/_news/2008/08/29/1803647-sarah-palin-dominionist-stalking-horse

 

Thanks for the link. I also googled "Sarah Palin Dominionist" and found a few more places that discuss this.

 

First of all, the link you provided, while somewhat helpful, went down a lot of bunny trails about her pastors and their theology and their sermons. I think that should play into it because she does attend/belong to the church, but I really wonder how accurately they are being portrayed. I feel the same way about some of the other sites I visited as I tried to understand where she is coming from on this issue. The thing is, it always suits an opponent's cause to present snippets of sermons here and there that seem to support their point but in reality the sermon was a lot more benign than is being portrayed. It really is next to impossible to get a really good grasp on what these men and women believe from the information presented at these sites.

 

For example, one of the sites mentions her pastor saying it is wrong to speak against the president. That's a biblical notion. He may have been trying to get people not to speak against Bush specifically, but then again, he may have been pointing out that it is wrong to speak against anyone in authority over you - your boss, the police, your governor or your president. My pastor preached on this issue when Clinton was president because there were many folks in the congregation speaking against him during that Monica Lewinsky episode. He said that it was bad to speak against Clinton, no matter how we felt, simply because he held the office of President. I know I was convicted on the matter and was much more careful about airing my criticisms.

 

It's like folks who want to support their cause by saying it is Biblical and then pulling Scripture verses out of their context to do so. You can have scripture support just about any pov if you know the right verses to use in your favor. I'm just saying I'd need to study this a lot more in-depth to get a good grip on Sarah Palin's viewpoint.

 

I saw a lot of references to the Christian life being like a war and that Christians have to contend for the faith (a phrase taken from the book of Jude). Non-Christians have a heyday with this sort of thing because they try to construe it as a militant gun battle. I think that is what they are trying to do at the sites I have looked at this morning. I'm not convinced that Sarah Palin's pastors are talking about anything more than a spiritual battle. Paul, writing to the Philippians, said that we have to put on the full armor of God because we are fighting NOT against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers (Ephesians 6). You have to be careful not to misinterpret a preacher when he mentions the warfare of Christians, because usually they mean a spiritual warfare fighting spiritual battles against Satan. It's a metaphor. You can't take it literally.

 

I don't subscribe to her brand of Christianity but I won't get into that here because I know there are at least a few ladies here who are what I call pentecostal or charismatic in their beliefs and I don't want to run them down for their pov. I just want to say that many Christians would find her church an uncomfortable place to be and I'm one of them. I still don't know for sure where she stands, though, because I think these sites that are painting her as a dominionist may be misinterpreting the pastor's sermons.

 

It is an awful lot of information to try to process and I have to say that I am wary of these sites and do question their motives for bringing all this stuff to the forefront. It would be easy to take all the things they are accusing her pastors of saying and explain them in purely metaphoric terms so I am not convinced that she is a dominionist.

 

There are some dominionist groups, to be sure, who want to play a larger part in politics and make laws that require folks to follow "Christian" principles. I don't actually know of any, but I'm guessing there are even some folks calling themselves Christians that want to raise an actual army and fight a physical battle - a desire I think is based on a gross misinterpretation of scripture. But the mainstream Dominionist thinkers I've read about (my pastor preached several sermons against dominionism so we had many weeks of handouts educating us on the idea) are not interested in physical violence. They are interested in gaining a foothold in higher political offices in order to influence policy. They hope to change America for the better by working the system and that will only work if the senators and representatives sent to Washington through the ballot box are on the same wavelength. That is the beauty of the American system - the folks who make the laws are sent by the people. If the vast majority of Americans do not want the laws changed, Congress won't change them. OTOH, if the vast majority do want the laws changed to reflect more "Christian-like" principles then shouldn't they be changed? Isn't that how democracy works?

 

Here is a link to a dominionist group's website (Chalcedon Foundation established by Rousas Rushdoony, one of the foundational figures in dominionist theology) that explains their true position. You will need to scroll down to "Misinterpretation #2: Political Dominion."

 

http://www.chalcedon.edu/credo.php

 

Again, I appreciate the link - definitely food for thought. I'd sure like to hear her views straight from her mouth though. There is just too much motivation for her opponents to discredit her unfairly by misinterpreting what her pastors have said to accept the site's perception of her hook, line and sinker without the opportunity for those pastors to speak for themselves on the matter.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

There is a possibility, though, that these adults are functioning fine and know all they need to know. I don't think people have to be bookish.

 

I still think the problem is with home life and NOT the educational system. The reason no one has found the solution is because the government cannot fix the family.

 

And I think pretty much everybody realizes this by now.

 

BUT- There are kids living in single parent homes where the mom is dying of AIDS. There are kids living in homes where mom and dad are too drunk or high to care for them. There are kids living in homes with parents who are so poor, they have to choose between food and electricity. I have met these kids. I have been in their homes.

 

When these kids are little, most of them LOVE school. School is a place that is comfortable, where there is warm food, and adults that smile. I took a 6 year old (one whose single mom is dying of AIDS) to our local library. This library, the one I constantly complain doesn't have a lot the materials I want, had this child awestruck. The little girl can only read a few words, but she sat there looking at books and pictures for 2 hours.

 

But, what happens is these little kids grow up. They are able to understand the messages that society is sending them. They start to see college as an impossibility, something not for "people like them." A lot of these kids tune out. Some of them even turn to crime. A few make it though, and it is ONLY because of our public schools and public libraries that they are able to do this.

[BlueGator]

I think the seductiveness of game systems and TVs is such that the library needs to sell itself. Loudly. The companies that make these products won't hesitate to use their bully pulpit, so to say,

 

These things really bother me also.

 

I have found by trial and error ;) that leading by personal example with a smile on my face and kindness in my tone accomplishes much more that pointing out the problems with familes that are not education minded.

 

When I take personal responcibity for ds education, reading, knowing math facts well .... ect, it causes people around me to evaluate their choices. Their choices are not all good or bad, but may inspire better vs not great choices.

[CAMom]

These are applied not based on the thinking of "Well, those people make a lot of money -- they should pay more" We also don't approach it as "Well, these five customers make tons of money -- one's the owner of the Honda dealership, etc etc, so let's make them pay twice as much as the retired, elderly couple.

 

You have to manage a business so that you have to make a profit when it's all said and done, and yes, price increases are sometimes necessary, but we also operate under the ethics that we try to make wise spending decisions.

 

 

 

Exactly! We are business owners, too. We own a software development company. We support large businesses (on the size of Pacific Gas and Electric) and small businesses (a local metal shop, for example). We don't charge PG & E through the nose just because they happen to have more money and use that to subsidize the work we do for the smaller company.

 

BTW, it's always the huge companies that nickel and dime us wanting discounted rates.;)

[Kathleen in VA]

I'm sure that's true-in the places where parents could pay for the schools. Private schools offer scholarships to high achieving students because it makes them look better. They have no reason to do the same for a low-achieving low-income student. Low-income school districts are in bad shape *now*. Jonathan Kozol has some *excellent* books on this. Those schools are in bad shape but if we're talking free enterprise? They *would not exist*.

 

Well, in the places where parents can not pay for school books the present system is not working at all. Why should be keep feeding it?

 

I know of many organizations (4-H, Civil Air Patrol, churches who offer activities for children such as summer camps, etc.) who offer scholarships for their programs and activities based purely on need.

 

I think it is possible, I venture to say even likely, that businesses would be willing to support that notion as well. It certainly is in their interest to do so - they are the ones who will have to deal with these children when they grow up and enter the workforce. If they aren't so heavily taxed by the feds they can offer more financial support to education endeavors.

 

Why should we write off this notion before anyone has ever given it a chance? Haven't we given public schools a decent shake at it? Where is the evidence that reforming schools is the answer - I don't see it. We talk about how we will get better service when cable companies are made to compete; why won't that happen with schools?

 

I just think it ought to be at least attempted before it is dismissed as un-doable. Many people said man would never fly and they didn't for millenia. Now we think nothing of hopping on a plane to get from here to there. I think we need to start thinking outside the proverbial box on this issue and stop trying to fix something that is broken beyond repair.

 

Perhaps I am being idealistic to suppose the idea of making schools compete in the free market could actually work. I don't know how we'll ever know, though, unless we give it a go. The present approach is not cutting it.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

I know of many organizations (4-H, Civil Air Patrol, churches who offer activities for children such as summer camps, etc.) who offer scholarships for their programs and activities based purely on need.

 

It costs money to be involved in 4-H. It also takes some support on the part of the parent, even if just to transport or arrange transportation. For some kids, 4-H, boy scouts, or any of those activities a lot of us take for granted or might see as solutions are simply not possible.

 

There are some churches that will go pick up kids. However, there are some churches that have a policy that a parent must sign children in and out of Sunday School or they can't attend. There are churches that have dress codes that prevent some children from attending. In many churches, one has to be a member to apply for a scholarship. So, I'm not willing to take a gamble on all churches being solid solutions for scholarships, although some most certainly are.

[Kathleen in VA]

It costs money to be involved in 4-H. It also takes some support on the part of the parent, even if just to transport or arrange transportation. For some kids, 4-H, boy scouts, or any of those activities a lot of us take for granted or might see as solutions are simply not possible.

 

There are some churches that will go pick up kids. However, there are some churches that have a policy that a parent must sign children in and out of Sunday School or they can't attend. There are churches that have dress codes that prevent some children from attending. In many churches, one has to be a member to apply for a scholarship. So, I'm not willing to take a gamble on all churches being solid solutions for scholarships, although some most certainly are.

 

I guess I wasn't making myself very clear. I wasn't suggesting that these organizations be the source of funds for education. I was saying that these organizations offer scholarships based on need not academic ability so it seems that businesses, who have a motivation to do so, would probably consider offering scholarships based on need, not on academic performance. This was in response to Mrs. Mungo's post about schools offering scholarships based on academic merit only. I was just trying to point out that all scholarships are not based on merit.

 

Does that make sense?

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

Does that make sense?

 

Sure it does. There are business who do reach out and offer scholarships in the neediest communities and they should get tax breaks for doing so.

[Haiku]

I am appalled that Sarah Palin would ridicule Barack Obama for being a community organizer. The Republican party is constantly harping on people to use their bootstraps and not rely on the government to take care of them, yet that party's VP nominee actually ridiculed someone for trying to help people do just that. Community organizers help people organize to get their needs met. Palin's ridicule is unprofessional and cruel, contradictory to what her party claims it wants from people, and, imo, is indicative of an underlying attitude that the Republican party has about poor people.

 

Tara

[Debbie in OR]

I am appalled that Sarah Palin would ridicule Barack Obama for being a community organizer.

 

Her comment had to do with the fact that as a Senator for 8 years, this was the sum total of his legacy.

[Kelli in TN]

It costs money to be involved in 4-H. It also takes some support on the part of the parent, even if just to transport or arrange transportation. For some kids, 4-H, boy scouts, or any of those activities a lot of us take for granted or might see as solutions are simply not possible.

 

.

 

Scouting can be quite expensive but 4H is a state program and varies greatly. In our state 4H is free and the clubs go to the schools as part of the school day. I think Tennessee's 4H program is a great model of how this program can be made accessible to a large population. It's growth is hampered only by overworked agents (which can be alievated by more volunteerism from community) and schools that won't let 4H come in (probably because 4H does nothing to help with standardized test scores and isn't that what matters the most these days?).

[LisaKinVA]

This was my take on the "community organizer' thing...

 

One reply I haven't seen on this "dig" -- was where it originated.

 

Obama's camp, on the day Palin was announced as McCain's VP, they ignored the fact that she was the Governor of Alaska, and instead chose to demean her by referring to her as the "former mayor of a town of 9,000 people." That was the official FIRST response, which Obama later referred to as a something essentially an over zealous staffer came up with -- it wasn't how he really felt.

 

However, it was one of a handful of major themes that the media glommed onto and repeated ad-nauseum from political show, to political show, to late-night comedy hours, and within newspaper after paper.

 

IMHO, It was a fair comparison -- and a fair response -- given the amount of vitrolic punditry thrown at her for being from a small town and a small state (population-wise), and the audience to which she was primarilly speaking.

 

Personally, I really, really, get sick of hearing liberal dems (for not all dems treated her this way), parroting the same lines about Palin's experience -- when they have 3 fingers pointing at them for their #1 ticket. And, I swear, if I hear, "do we want someone with so little experience one heart-beat away from the presidency" again, compared to day one of the presidency, I'll have to break out the vomit emoticon.:D

 

Obama could just as easilly drop dead after inaugration as McCain -- and then we'll be stuck with Biden. Yeah, I get the chills just thinking about it. He's all about change.

 

And that US cover was inflamatory. When a representative of US weekly was asked about the "lies" it refferred to (because the inference is they were going to talk about HER lies and HER scandals), they said they were referring to the lies, etc. being perpetrated in the blogosphere, which we should remember were being reported in MSM as potential "truth" or even downright true (hence retractions)... the article itself might have been fairly balanced, but the headline gave a totally different impression.

[Saille]

Her comment had to do with the fact that as a Senator for 8 years, this was the sum total of his legacy.

 

Not that that's an accurate assessment.

 

(I promise, I went away and did astronomy with my kids. I swear.)

[Kathleen in VA]

I am appalled that Sarah Palin would ridicule Barack Obama for being a community organizer. The Republican party is constantly harping on people to use their bootstraps and not rely on the government to take care of them, yet that party's VP nominee actually ridiculed someone for trying to help people do just that. Community organizers help people organize to get their needs met. Palin's ridicule is unprofessional and cruel, contradictory to what her party claims it wants from people, and, imo, is indicative of an underlying attitude that the Republican party has about poor people.

 

Tara

 

As I said in a previous post on this thread, her comment was not criticizing or demeaning the job of a community organizer. She was merely pointing out that having community organizer on your resume does not qualify you to run the country. It is about his level of experience, not about the worthiness of the job of community organizer in society.

[Haiku]

She was merely pointing out that having community organizer on your resume does not qualify you to run the country.

 

Then that is what she should have said. However, she did not say that. She instead chose to ridicule his work, and the contempt in her voice as she talked about this was shocking to me.

 

Tara

[kokotg]

As I said in a previous post on this thread, her comment was not criticizing or demeaning the job of a community organizer. She was merely pointing out that having community organizer on your resume does not qualify you to run the country. It is about his level of experience, not about the worthiness of the job of community organizer in society.

 

he was a community organizer for 3 years right out of college. Back before he went to Harvard law school, was a civil rights lawyer, a constitutional law professor, a state senator, and a US Senator. It would make just as much sense to argue, of Sarah Palin, that being a beauty pageant contestant does not qualify one to be vice president. It is not in any way analogous to her experience as a mayor or governor.

[Kathleen in VA]

he was a community organizer for 3 years right out of college. Back before he went to Harvard law school, was a civil rights lawyer, a constitutional law professor, a state senator, and a US Senator. It would make just as much sense to argue, of Sarah Palin, that being a beauty pageant contestant does not qualify one to be vice president. It is not in any way analogous to her experience as a mayor or governor.

 

Well, he lists his community organizer experience on his official website and I'm pretty sure beauty queen is not on her resume. That just happens to be a fact about her.

 

Besides, my point in this particular post is not about his level of experience. It is about the fact that her statement was NOT about other community organizers and whether their work has merit or not. Her remarks were about the job of community organizer not being an indication of his ability to make executive decisions. People seem to be taking the remarks too personally, imo. She did not say anything at all about community organizers as a group. She was trying to make the distinction between that job (non-executive) to her experience as a mayor and a governor (both executive).

 

ETA: Oh, and all that other stuff about his education and experience is admirable. I think he has an impressive resume, but it lacks executive experience and we usually expect to see something on that order from a presidential candidate. If the other candidate, in this case McCain, has leadership experience that certainly weighs into the equation. If his vp pick has executive experience, that certainly adds more weight to that ticket.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

As I said in a previous post on this thread, her comment was not criticizing or demeaning the job of a community organizer. She was merely pointing out that having community organizer on your resume does not qualify you to run the country. It is about his level of experience, not about the worthiness of the job of community organizer in society.

 

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities.

Small town mayor... let's take a closer look at what this means.

 

According to the 2000 census- Wasilla's population of about 6,000 is 85% white.

 

The average household income in Wasilla is about $48,000, $53,000 for families.

 

In Wasilla, only 5.7% of families and only 9.6% of the population are living below the poverty line.

 

So, I do not doubt she had a lot of responsibilities and can understand the needs of the hockey mom crowd. But I doubt she can relate well to the moms who can't afford ice cubes in the same way a community organizer working in Chicago could.