DISQUS

Chimpy said: "Religious belief is an evolutionary response to existential fear, and existential fear is compounded by poor education, hunger, poverty and lack of opportunity

Funny. I have to admit, I seem to be in the minority on this question. Those vending machines are a heart attack waiting to happen. I'd like to see a paradigm shift, so wasn't as perturbed by the fiat as everyone else seemed to be. As to that fiat... it's clear that ruling in that manner isn't generally the best way to win allies.

That's what I heard...camped out in the church!

Comparing Palin to Obama in terms of qualifications is a bit over the top.

They're both relative newcomers when compared to their running mates, with different kinds of qualifications, but here's the distinction in my mind:

The Democratic party spent over a year aggressively debating and voting on who would be their candidate for office. Obama's qualifications were picked over completely, he had to defend them over and over again while up against people who had been in politics a lot longer than himself. This gave all of the United States ample opportunity to mull over this aspect of his candidacy, to hear from him and his supporters for months on end as to why he himself is fully qualified. And ultimately, he was found to be qualified by a huge number of people at the ballot box.

Palin was selected by a very small handful of people to be vice president to a president who, if he wins, will be approaching 80 years of age. Most people have no clue who she is. Frankly, I don't think its good enough that the response to the question of qualifications is that she is "more or as qualified as Obama." What a free pass that is. She should have to just as rigorously answer that question, as Obama has had to do. And we only have about 8 weeks to hear it...so let's hope the Republicans stop hiding her from the press.

Comparing Palin to Obama in terms of qualifications is a bit over the top.

They're both relative newcomers when compared to their running mates, with different kinds of qualifications, but here's the distinction in my mind:

The Democratic party spent over a year aggressively debating and voting on who would be their candidate for office. Obama's qualifications were picked over completely, he had to defend them over and over again while up against people who had been in politics a lot longer than himself. This gave all of the United States ample opportunity to mull over this aspect of his candidacy, to hear from him and his supporters for months on end as to why he himself is fully qualified. And ultimately, he was found to be qualified by a huge number of people at the ballot box.

Palin was selected by a very small handful of people to be vice president to a president who, if he wins, will be approaching 80 years of age. Most people have no clue who she is. Frankly, I don't think its good enough that the response to the question of qualifications is that she is "more or as qualified as Obama." What a free pass that is. She should have to just as rigorously answer that question, as Obama has had to do. And we only have about 8 weeks to hear it...so let's hope the Republicans stop hiding her from the press.

My comments here have been strictly about the diversity found within the Republican party, and the lack of continuity in Cindy McCain's comments re the history of that party.

The majority Anglo populations in the South and Texas did switch parties to the point of causing a shift from Democratic to Republican power in those states, largely due to disaffection with the gains made from the civil rights movement. Those gains ultimately were implemented by Democratic party elected officials.

When Cindy McCain claims the end of slavery as a Republican victory I think it would be only fair, not to mention correct, to mention that African American people by and large *today* aren't members of that party. And why is that? Please, I am all ears.

As to the sordid history found among leaders of the Democratic party historically, you'll get no argument from me.

My comments here have been strictly about the diversity found within the Republican party, and the lack of continuity in Cindy McCain's comments re the history of that party.

The majority Anglo populations in the South and Texas did switch parties to the point of causing a shift from Democratic to Republican power in those states, largely due to disaffection with the gains made from the civil rights movement. Those gains ultimately were implemented by Democratic party elected officials.

When Cindy McCain claims the end of slavery as a Republican victory I think it would be only fair, not to mention correct, to mention that African American people by and large *today* aren't members of that party. And why is that? Please, I am all ears.

As to the sordid history found among leaders of the Democratic party historically, you'll get no argument from me.

Thomas, I'm willing to keep an open mind about there being a movement for reform with the R's. But frankly, I don't think the "reform" you speak of is about increasing diversity within the party. But if that is the case, I look forward to seeing it. While I don't think the R's would call it "reform" I do think the strategists among that party recognize they need to become more diverse if they want to remain a viable party in the long run.

In the meantime, I see no reason to not point out the obvious. And to the point of bias, as Trip pointed out, this is the commentary column and we are not discussing anything I reported. But even if we were, I think my comments are pretty straightforward and verifiable by anyone who wants to take the time to do so. As New_Mexican has done already.

Thomas, I'm willing to keep an open mind about there being a movement for reform with the R's. But frankly, I don't think the "reform" you speak of is about increasing diversity within the party. But if that is the case, I look forward to seeing it. While I don't think the R's would call it "reform" I do think the strategists among that party recognize they need to become more diverse if they want to remain a viable party in the long run.

In the meantime, I see no reason to not point out the obvious. And to the point of bias, as Trip pointed out, this is the commentary column and we are not discussing anything I reported. But even if we were, I think my comments are pretty straightforward and verifiable by anyone who wants to take the time to do so. As New_Mexican has done already.

Thomas, I am simply pointing out what scans of the crowd emanating directly from the stage in both cases, Democrat and Republican, showed on every night of the convention. On multiple different stations. As to partisan rhetoric, what you've heard from me is not a defense of the Democrats so much as a critique of the Republicans...something that is well within my purview since I was raised within the environment I describe almost completely.

Thomas, I am simply pointing out what scans of the crowd emanating directly from the stage in both cases, Democrat and Republican, showed on every night of the convention. On multiple different stations. As to partisan rhetoric, what you've heard from me is not a defense of the Democrats so much as a critique of the Republicans...something that is well within my purview since I was raised within the environment I describe almost completely.

The point is not that individual Republicans are "racist" or "sexist"...it's that the Republican party is not diverse in terms of race. And the next question becomes then, why is that? If the network coverage of the conventions is good for anything, it's for showing the stark difference between the two parties. You know, not everything is conveyed with words (although Tracy did a great job of describing it!).

Also, it's not good enough to say regarding the Republicans that, well...that's just the leadership, the base is a lot more diverse. Even if thats true, it would still point to the fact that the Republican party has a serious problem with diversity. It's a problem if you believe, as many do, that diversity is a political, social, and economic "good" in and of itself.

Finally, I hope others caught the irony of Cindy McCain proudly describing to a room full of primarily white people that they are the party of Abraham Lincoln. Too bad she couldn't round out her statement with the fact that the segregationists took over the party in the latter half of the 20th century. This is not an ad hominem attack either--it's a historically verifiable fact. By segregationists, I'm referring to a large percentage of southern Democrats who did not like the outcomes of the civil rights movement, and who consequently hopped parties--leading to the south and Texas going Red.

The point is not that individual Republicans are "racist" or "sexist"...it's that the Republican party is not diverse in terms of race. And the next question becomes then, why is that? If the network coverage of the conventions is good for anything, it's for showing the stark difference between the two parties. You know, not everything is conveyed with words (although Tracy did a great job of describing it!).

Also, it's not good enough to say regarding the Republicans that, well...that's just the leadership, the base is a lot more diverse. Even if thats true, it would still point to the fact that the Republican party has a serious problem with diversity. It's a problem if you believe, as many do, that diversity is a political, social, and economic "good" in and of itself.

Finally, I hope others caught the irony of Cindy McCain proudly describing to a room full of primarily white people that they are the party of Abraham Lincoln. Too bad she couldn't round out her statement with the fact that the segregationists took over the party in the latter half of the 20th century. This is not an ad hominem attack either--it's a historically verifiable fact. By segregationists, I'm referring to a large percentage of southern Democrats who did not like the outcomes of the civil rights movement, and who consequently hopped parties--leading to the south and Texas going Red.

The bigger question, for me, is what is fair and balanced in the media? Both in the blogosphere, as well as print journalism, television and radio? Do journalists ever leave some facts out of their stories, or not cover certain stories at all, due to their own personal agendas, or to advance their own careers?

What power does the "liberal blogosphere" frame have, when it comes to public perception? How does it stack up with the recent news reported right here at NMI about the conservative slant of the opinion pages of the nation's newspapers? These same newspapers are often charged with being part of the "liberal media," so what gives?

Why not just "the blogosphere" in general? Are we to believe that Fox News doesn't regularly read conservative blogs? Someone tell me, because I don't know. But I do know that Fox news is a conservative outlet. Where does it get all the tidbits that feed its 24-hour nonstop "news"? And is it invalid for mainstream media to look to blogs for news? It appears that many news outlets do so routinely these days. It used to be that there were many more newspapers in this country, from small "rags" to metropolitan wide publications. It could be that blogs are picking up some of that slack.

Life, in fact, is not as cut and dried as a lot of career journalists would like it to be. Journalism, by its nature, interprets reality for the public. That is not a function owned by anybody. Regarding the particular case that Heath mentions here, I've actually heard counter-arguments from Barb, et al, for why that particular comment was worthy of being reported. Their question, then, is why didn't Heath himself report it? And why does he think that his interpretation of the context is more valid than theirs?

The bigger question, for me, is what is fair and balanced in the media? Both in the blogosphere, as well as print journalism, television and radio? Do journalists ever leave some facts out of their stories, or not cover certain stories at all, due to their own personal agendas, or to advance their own careers?

What power does the "liberal blogosphere" frame have, when it comes to public perception? How does it stack up with the recent news reported right here at NMI about the conservative slant of the opinion pages of the nation's newspapers? These same newspapers are often charged with being part of the "liberal media," so what gives?

Why not just "the blogosphere" in general? Are we to believe that Fox News doesn't regularly read conservative blogs? Someone tell me, because I don't know. But I do know that Fox news is a conservative outlet. Where does it get all the tidbits that feed its 24-hour nonstop "news"? And is it invalid for mainstream media to look to blogs for news? It appears that many news outlets do so routinely these days. It used to be that there were many more newspapers in this country, from small "rags" to metropolitan wide publications. It could be that blogs are picking up some of that slack.

Life, in fact, is not as cut and dried as a lot of career journalists would like it to be. Journalism, by its nature, interprets reality for the public. That is not a function owned by anybody. Regarding the particular case that Heath mentions here, I've actually heard counter-arguments from Barb, et al, for why that particular comment was worthy of being reported. Their question, then, is why didn't Heath himself report it? And why does he think that his interpretation of the context is more valid than theirs?

Here's a good time line on voting rights: http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html

I learned something new from it. In addition to the poll tax, many southern states held private all-white primaries until they were ruled unconstitutional in 1944. You can read about them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_primary

Here's a good time line on voting rights: http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html

I learned something new from it. In addition to the poll tax, many southern states held private all-white primaries until they were ruled unconstitutional in 1944. You can read about them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_primary

This is a very good point. In addition to Jim Crow segregation laws, the right to vote for blacks was severely curtailed by poll taxes and literacy rules throughout the south. Essentially, the 15th amendment giving black men the vote was made moot, at least in the south, and white women as a group therefore had an actual ability to vote well before black men did. The refusal to not only recognize this, but to actively encourage a less than complete analysis, is just one of the ways in which Gloria Steinem's op-ed in the New York Times last January made so many folks angry.

This is a very good point. In addition to Jim Crow segregation laws, the right to vote for blacks was severely curtailed by poll taxes and literacy rules throughout the south. Essentially, the 15th amendment giving black men the vote was made moot, at least in the south, and white women as a group therefore had an actual ability to vote well before black men did. The refusal to not only recognize this, but to actively encourage a less than complete analysis, is just one of the ways in which Gloria Steinem's op-ed in the New York Times last January made so many folks angry.

That's right, thanks for pointing that out. I saw today that Alaska is going to sue to block the listing.

That's right, thanks for pointing that out. I saw today that Alaska is going to sue to block the listing.