links for 2008-09-14
September 15, 2008 – 12:01 am-
spin, spin, spin… from both sides.
-
pretty funny, and Tina Fey nailed the accent
Recent Books- The Thirteen-Gun Salute (Book 13) November 8, 2008
- Environmental Stewardship in the Judeo-Christian Tradition: Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant Wisdom on the Environment November 1, 2008
- Euclid's Elements October 29, 2008
- A Wrinkle in Time (Time, Book 1) October 29, 2008
- Recent Audio
- Recent Twitter
7 Responses to “links for 2008-09-14”
Spin I’d be willing to grant–it’s a term for a certain kind of rhetoric. But I haven’t seen anything from the Obama campaign that could be characterized as an outright falsehood. Comprehensive sex ed for kindergarteners is plainly false, as is the bridge to nowhere line. I’m not as hot and bothered about that sort of thing as many people are, but it’s not just spin and it’s not being done by both sides.
By hb on Sep 15, 2008
I’m talking about in that video. I don’t know about every single ad, or what is true and what isn’t, but that video claims to be “proof” and I saw little of that.
By dwight on Sep 16, 2008
Okay, if we’re talking about partisans, and not candidates and campaigns, that’s one thing. And sure that video doesn’t offer its promised proof.
Here’s the things the candidates have been doing that I mentioned.
http://tinyurl.com/6j7txy
http://tinyurl.com/565ub8
By hb on Sep 17, 2008
a) I would be against that bill Obama voted for.
‘“age and developmentally appropriate” sex education’ means “less than comprehensive” to Democrats and “the same thing as comprehensive” to Republicans (if you will excuse my gross generalization).
I don’t know about the “swing voters” though.
b)As far as I can tell, Palin, as long as she wasn’t “against it before she was for it” wasn’t lying.
However, she clearly hasn’t been as stringent as McCain on pork-barrel spending. That doesn’t mean that she can’t join the ticket and be against it now.
By dwight on Sep 18, 2008
Saying “I told the Congress, ‘Thanks but no thanks on the bridge to nowhere’” is untrue because Congress had already killed the project when she opposed it. She may have said that (to whom? by what means?), but it would have had no efficacy (and in fact, she didn’t say that). Then, of course, she’s kept the money, which vitiates this as an example of fiscal restraint. Sure, she can change her positions, but she should come out and say that. It’s the fundamental dishonesty about her record that I’m pointing to.
For myself, I’d want public school students to know about the dangers of AIDS, if not in great detail all the ways it can be transmitted. As to “where do babies come from,” I’m not sure why it shouldn’t be covered in school. Of course, it’s not like a bunch of these kids don’t know about that stuff already, especially in America’s cities, thus making proper education on these matters doubly important. In any case, while it’s good to know your opinion, I don’t think that makes the McCain ad truthful or accurate. Certainly the bill didn’t mandate anything of the kind of stuff the ad contains.
By hb on Sep 18, 2008
I’m still having a hard time knowing the difference between “spin” and “lie.”
Growing up in Texas, those were the same thing…
By dwight on Sep 18, 2008
“Sex education” in public schools runs into all the same problems as teaching “the origin of life,” and for the same reasons!
What is talk about procreation but more talk of origins?
Which is not and can never be constitutionally the proper domain of a system that taxpayers are required to pay for…
When will we learn that talk about origins *always* favors one or another ideology or faith system?
As for the First Amendment…
I do not have free speech if I am required to subsidize someone else’s speech platform that may be diametrically opposed to my own views (about origins).
I am not free in my practice of religion if I am forced to subsidize another religion (any belief about origins, whether of the universe or of babies)…
By Cool Bobby on Oct 14, 2008