We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I have some difficulty with Drew's article. Not so much that it's unbelievable, because it's very believable.
The difficulty is that Drew himself was once a Marxist revolutionary. If he can change, why can't Obama? I'm not making a case that Obama has changed. That's a matter of opinion.
I'm making a case that we have all said or done things in our past, particularly in college, that we would call into question today. The real issue is just how much we've changed over time.
Drew seems to have shifted his views significantly - why is he unwilling to suppose that Obama hasn't or couldn't have?
The story itself is interesting, it's a shame it didn't get much coverage in 2008, when it may have made a difference. But today I'm not sure it will carry much weight and my own indifference to it, from the standpoint of the person telling the story, is going to cause many MSM outlets to push it aside.
This is purely observational, not judgemental. Many people will read an article like that and take away very different opinions. Obama lovers will find plenty of reasons to defend him (some using the logic I applied above), others will shoot the messenger, and I suspect many people (like myself) will just read it and say "this is interesting, it explains alot, but it's just no longer all that relevant".
In other words, we have bigger fish to fry now. Too bad it wasn't widely available in 2008.
Rick, it isn't that the REPs rejected info on Obambi's past, all their requests to research it, bring it to the press, or even have the press DO their jobs to vet him fell on deaf, fawning ears.
Its not from a lack of trying - the MSM outright REFUSED to vet, investigate, or even report common known (or even any lacking background), but gosh, they sure seem to find every speck of lint\dirt on the opponent, even if its hearsay or made-up
Yeah? So what's new there? It's been that way for a long time, and it's not likely to change anytime soon.
My point is just that while this article would've been very useful 4 years ago, today it's less important than the reality we face.
And, to play devil's advocate for Obama supporters, all they have to do is make the points I made about reliability of the source, as well as the ability for people to change.
On Maggie's, I don't expect people to support Obama, and I certainly don't support him. But it's easy to see how a story like this didn't manage to see the light of day. Even if it did, it's easy to see how the MSM would discount its value.
I'm not saying that what happened is 'correct'. Just that it is easy to understand given the state of affairs in our nation. In other words, nothing shocking here.
If I understand Coyote's article, and I think I did, the European Union's eco-folks counted a reduction in CO2 as valuable to climate conditions, which it isn't in the first place, and then double-counted the absorption of CO2 by biofuel crops, or at any rate exaggerated the effect. So they exaggerated something that was worthless to begin with, and the taxpayers and workers of Europe are having their economies stifled for this.
Yes, that sounds like what Obama would like to do.
"US government wants second-largest Indian tribe to recognize as citizens 2,800 descendants of slaves that were held by Cherokees."
Well, yes - and no. The Cherokee want to drop citizenship for the 2800 who are currently on the rolls, the Administration not only insists those should be kept but the descendants who are not currently citizens - 20,000 or more - be allowed in.
- - - -
That "bio" of Palin - would you believe it, even the NYTimes review calls it out. The LEAST but:
'Although most of “The Rogue” is dated, petty and easily available to anyone with Internet access, Mr. McGinniss used his time in Alaska to chase caustic, unsubstantiated gossip about the Palins, often from unnamed sources like “one resident” and “a friend.”'