Cynical Nation

Are Feminists hysterical?
Are Democrats insane?
Are Europeans stupid?

Is Cynical Nation going off the cliff?

Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr unwittingly ate cheese made from breast milk in the 'Borat' movie, and he turned out all right.

>Is Cynical Nation going off the cliff?

Yes.

But how else am I going to get people to read a post about Thomas Frank? People will see that name and their eyes will glaze over. It's hard to draw traffic, especially when you only average one post a month. (Although admittedly, I guess the breast milk story did give me a bit more to work with.)

So what you're saying is, you intend to (gulp) milk it for all it's worth?

“Are Feminists hysterical?”

“Are Democrats insane?”

“Are Europeans stupid?”

(PE)


I have the answers!


“Are Feminists hysterical?

Well those who claim that McCain/Palin are a threat to abortion rights are.

We’ve already established that IF Roe were overturned the issue of abortion would merely return to the individual states. No muss...no fuss.


“Are Democrats insane?”

No.

Are LIBERAL Democrats insane, or better still, are true Liberals who remain Democrats insane?

Very much so. And should they lose this November, expect a mass exodus of Liberals FROM the Democratic Party.


“Are Europeans stupid?”

Are people still wondering about this?

I mean, sure, they’ve appeared a lot smarter since ousting Schroeder and Chirac and replacing them with the pro-Americanist administrations of Merckel and Sarkozy, BUT any people who don’t know that humans are indeed primates (and at least according Nobel Prize winner and professor of Biology at Harvard, Dr. George Wald, “The smartest damned primates you’ll ever see.”) very definitely qualify as stupid.



Whew! I feel like a cross between Dr. Science and the Shell Answer Man.

Geez, don't those Europeans learn anything in biology class?

Hm...as a Palin supporter, you want Sarah Palin to teach them creationism or something? Just curious.

"as a Palin supporter, you want Sarah Palin to teach them creationism or something? Just curious." (BW)


Another funny story!

Turns out that Sarah Palin never advocated the teaching of "Creationism" in the Alaskan schools, though she did advocate "allowing class discussions of BOTH abiogenesis and Intelligent Design."

Aside from the FACT that abiogenesis has BEEN proven scientifically impossible, my primary problem with the "sloppy thinkers" on the Left, at least in THIS regard, is their insipid and slavish devotion to, in effect, banning any discussion or dissent.

Dumb people tend to do such dumb things, I guess.

Amazingly enough, bright people tend to be a lot more open-minded. For instance, Dr. George Wald (a Nobel Prize winner in Biology and professor Emeritus of Biology at Harvard, until his death in 1997) said, "There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."

(Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)

I tend to agree with Dr. Wald, except I came to a somewhat different, more or less agnostic conclusion, mine, which I've held since about 1983 is, "There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Since spontaneous generation (that life arose from non-living matter) has been scientifically disproved, that leaves only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I believe that the mechanism of creation (a God, or Creative Life Force) is incomprehensible to us at this time and thus I accept that the mechanism of creation of both life and matter is unknowable to us at this point in time."

I believe my conclusion is both more cogent and more rational than George Wald's.

Somehow, I get the distinct impression that BW (like so many other reflexive, non-critical Leftists) thinks "abiogenesis wins by default."

There's an irony there. As there is no "winning by default" in such things and IF there was, than, as George Wald clearly notes, Intelligent Design would, in fact, "win by default," but as in most such things, the most logical thing that can be said is "the specific mechanism is unknowable at this time."

CORRECTION: "Aside from the FACT that abiogenesis has BEEN proven scientifically impossible..."

"IMPOSSIBLE" should be replaced with "highly unlikely" as science never "proves a negative."

The best we can say concerning abiogenesis is that science shows it to be highly unlikely, in fact, incredibly so.

RE: "We’ve already established that IF Roe were overturned the issue of abortion would merely return to the individual states."

Who is this "we"? Do you have a tapeworm? (And are you sure this tapeworm agrees with you?) ;)

I don't believe anyone should be taught creationism in a science class. And last I heard, Sarah Palin said she had no desire to try to get it taught in Alaskan public schools. Someone should tell those crazy Europeans, though. ;-)

Hey Barry,
I like your focus on totally irrelevant and silly things :-)

In the mean time you support McCain/Palin who are part of a collapsing party that is damaging the country. The ongoing financial collapse is the result of Bush/republican policies. The country is literally at the edge of becoming a 3rd world country (something like Mexico or Brazil).

Sending back McCain (Bush III) to the WH will complete the destruction. And you, of course, support them. Cool.

Just remember how the economy was under Clinton and how it came to be at the edge of total destruction now. That's reality.

“...In the mean time you support McCain/Palin who are part of a collapsing party that is damaging the country. The ongoing financial collapse is the result of Bush/republican policies. The country is literally at the edge of becoming a 3rd world country (something like Mexico or Brazil).

(FUNNY Story – Brazil has a booming economy right now and they are completely oil-independent, as they grow their own fuel – sugar-based ethanol. It’s just kind of indicative of your general lack of knowledge, that you’d use Brazil as an example of a “3rd World Economy” JMK)

“Sending back McCain (Bush III) to the WH will complete the destruction. And you, of course, support them. Cool.

“Just remember how the economy was under Clinton and how it came to be at the edge of total destruction now. That's reality.” (BW)


“The ongoing financial collapse is the result of Bush/republican policies.”

Do you EVER get tired of being wrong all the time?

The Dems have controlled Congress for nearly 2 years and they are the only branch of government that directly impacts the economy via things like tax policy, regulatory policies, etc.

Everything from about June of 2007 is the “Pelosi-Reid Mess.”

The current credit/mortgage crisis is the direct result of Liberal policies – eradicating red-lining, and expanding credit to lesser qualified people.

It turns out that both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not merely “lenders of last resort," BUT the tools, by which those inclined, used to advance a discredited (no pun intended) idea called “credit socialism,” whereby poorer/more high risk borrowers would be given equal-access to credit (the primary source of Capital and wealth creation) as their more low-risk and well-off neighbors. THAT is a terrible anti-Capitalist and thus anti-American idea.

Ironically enough, BOTH G W Bush and John McCain TWICE sought to reign in and reform Fannie and Freddie and were rebuffed by effete Liberals in Congress like Chris Dodd and Barney Franks...I believe that Obama joined with Franks and Dodd in the 2005 vote.

Moreover, both Franklin D. Raines and James Johnson (two former major Liberal-Democratic operatives, who both headed Fannie Mae at different times are Obama advisors.

The entire Fannie/Freddie debacle is a Liberal-Democrat ONE! "The two institutions have long been run not by bankers but by retired political figures, predominantly Democrats. From 1991 to 1998, Fannie Mae was headed by James Johnson, a longtime aide to former Democratic vice president Walter Mondale."

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/07/11/david-frum-on-the-demise-of-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac.aspx


“The economy under Bill Clinton?”

What "Clinton economy?!"

The economy during Bill Clinton’s first couple years (with a Democratic Congress) sucked!

The economy of the late 1990s – the “Gingrich Congress’ economy" was much better, though not without its problems. Ironically enough, just as the Bush SEC allowed some financial institutions to operate wildly, the Clinton SEC allowed IPOs and margin rates to get completely out of hand, resulting in the “Tech Bubble Bust.”

"We’ve already established that IF Roe were overturned the issue of abortion would merely return to the individual states."
Who is this "we"? Do you have a tapeworm? (And are you sure this tapeworm agrees with you?) ;) (PE)


Again, FUNNY story - that’s actually been established by law, PE...and “we” rational people (and that includes you, so long as you accept that fact...and AGAIN, your not arguing that assertion does imply agreement whether you like that imlication or not) know that should Roe be overturned, abortion rights would rightfully become a states issue.

I am so supremely confident of this fact that I will say that no one here will find ANY verifiable information anywhere that would imply that the overturning of Roe v Wade would in any “make abortion illegal.”

I’d presumed that’s why you didn’t challenge that assertion in the first place.

Actually, I believe that there are many possibilities regarding what could happen if Roe is overturned as there are many factors, including how the opinion is worded and whether Congress decides to get involved as they have done with the partial birth legislation. There is also RU-486, which is currently FDA approved, but I could be illegal in states that ban all abortions.

When I say I agree with you, I'll say it. Otherwise, don't assume it.

There is ONLY ONE outcome of the overturning of Roe v Wade - that the abortion issue would go back to the states.

The overturning of Roe WOULD NOT in any way outlaw abortion...so you are wrong in asserting that it WOULD (your claiming you disagree with me here, asserts an implicit view that overtruning Roe would outlaw abortion, on your part).

It is NOT OPINION that the 1973 decision that banned Capital Punishment was "bad law."

It was bad law and that's why it was overturned...such decisions belong to the states.

Ergo, it's also UNDENIABLE that Roe itself is equally "bad law," because it makes the very same error.

Well, check out the supreme court website and there is a list of the opinions of each court, as well as the dissents from the majority opinions. They are called opinions, because they are precisely that. When five justices agree to overturn precedent, they write a majority opinion while the minority writes a dissent. What the majority writes in their opinion often determines the scope of the change in precedent. I can't predict what the majority will write.

The "OPINION" is whether there exists a "right to abortion implied in the 4th Amendment" - at best a stretch.

THERE is absolutely NO OPINION that Roe v Wade's appeal would do ANYTHING other than send the abortion issue back to the individual states.

Again, that much is FACT. IF that were opinion, I'd have no trouble acknowledging that.

There is absolutely not a single legitimate individual who holds the inane view that "Repealing Roe would outlaw abortion," any more than the repeal of Furman "made Capital Punishment the law of the land" - it merely sent that issue back to the individual states. Repealing Roe would send the issue back to the states, therefore, it is a FACT that the repeal of Roe would NOT outlaw abortion anywhere.

Your confusing fact with opinion does not change either.

Ooooops! "THERE is absolutely NO OPINION that Roe v Wade's REPEAL would do ANYTHING other than send the abortion issue back to the individual states.

All Roe's repeal would do would be to send the issue back to the states where it rightfully belongs.