Speaking of hypocrisy...

[mrblanche]

apparently it's OK for Democrat husbands to cheat, but not Republicans.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3755283&page=1

[robmcg]

Without reading everything there he is my choice.

Given the circumstances. I dunno how to disenfranchise the regilious nutters any other way [and I judge the USA to be by majority reiigious nutters]

Pragmatic decisions in life-death... could such issues allow decomcracy such foolishness? I gave up on the US when Gore's apeeal was overturned, and though, well, democracy... no. Fickle fate.

I am seriously worried that religious nutters by means of money and propaganda are painting the world into such a state that war with nobody in particular is certain. And it ain't much the fault of we outside the USA.

[Eric]

apparently it's OK for Democrat husbands to cheat, but not Republicans.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3755283&page=1

You're missing the point.

Democrats don't usually bray about "fambly values" and lecture others about morality. Thus, theyaren't as loathsomely hypocritical as the Republicans who do - and get caught.

[mrblanche]

You're missing the point.

Democrats don't usually bray about "fambly values" and lecture others about morality. Thus, theyaren't as loathsomely hypocritical as the Republicans who do - and get caught.

And you're missing the point. Right is right, wrong is wrong, or else you can justify doing anything to anyone, an attitude you have criticized yourself.

There are either absolute values, or there aren't. You choose for yourself.

[Eric]

You're missing the point.

Democrats don't usually bray about "fambly values" and lecture others about morality. Thus, theyaren't as loathsomely hypocritical as the Republicans who do - and get caught.

And you're missing the point. Right is right, wrong is wrong, or else you can justify doing anything to anyone, an attitude you have criticized yourself.

There are either absolute values, or there aren't. You choose for yourself.

You are arguing something entirely different; I agree values are absolute - but what's at issue here is the hypocrisy of these GOP "fambly values" moralizing SOBs - who make a bih show in public of talking about their "values" - and then turn out to have none!

[jdm124]

Without reading everything there he is my choice.

[and I judge the USA to be by majority religious nutters]

True only if those who believe in the gospel of global warming are included.

[mrblanche]

You are arguing something entirely different; I agree values are absolute - but what's at issue here is the hypocrisy of these GOP "fambly values" moralizing SOBs - who make a bih show in public of talking about their "values" - and then turn out to have none!

Not at all. My argument is that if it's wrong for a GOP guy to do it, it's wrong for a Dem to do, and making any distinction at all is ridiculous. I will gladly criticize Republicans for misbehaving (and I have). They may be hypocrites to say one thing and do another, but this is a case of someone being a hypocrite for criticizing only one party.

[Rick]

I gave up on the US when Gore's apeeal was overturned, and though, well, democracy... no.

The US isn't a democracy. It is a representative republic. There is a big difference.

No system of government is always popular. That's generally an indication that it is working properly. The rules are the rules regardless of whether or not public opinion in the past 5 minutes thinks those should be the rules.

If the rules consistently prove unpopular (i.e., they are unpopular even when the other persuasion takes control) they will be changed. In the meantime government should not be run by public opinion polls that are subject to manipulation by a class protected by Constitutional tenent.

There are people in the US who are confused about this too. Some of them actually think that the Executive Branch was bound to observe the political philosophical change in the US Congress after the last election. Most of them were qualified to vote in that election but chose not to participate, but that was probably for the best because of their inadequate understanding of the rules.

[mrblanche]

And most Americans seem not to realize that a poll is nothing but a finger in the wind, at best, and is usually nothing more than a finger in front of a fan that is constantly changing direction.

I personally think that a man who can't remain faithful to one woman, as he vowed to do at his wedding, is probably not to be trusted with larger responsibilities. Unfortunately, that is a view that is probably not reasonable, given the character of most men of power.

But the thought of Rudy getting thrown out of the NY governor's mansion by his wronged wife should give everyone pause.

But they didn't seem to care about Hillary throwing ashtrays at the President, so why should this matter?

[robmcg]

True only if those who believe in the gospel of global warming are included.

Admit it, my son, the arctic was a tad more watery than icy these last two years. That both poles are warmer. That the Himilayas are warmer. Ocean temps are way warmer here at surface.

It may not be CO2 but CO2 *does* allow more heat from the sun to bake the surface of the earth.

I say burn more coal, make more smog. Did you have Hugenots in yout parentage?
Actually, nuke power stations don't offer relief... they require almost enough CO2 emmision in construction and decommissioning as coal/gas... hydro is good, solar is too dependent on sun, wind dependent on wind.

Why do you think that the planet is experiencing temps inside 'normal' variation, in yoiur own speak as well as propaganda you may choose?

[mrblanche]

Actually, both poles were not warmer. The south pole was colder, and accumulated more ice.

Texas was much cooler than usual, and wetter, too. But no glaciers formed here.

[chiph]

The sunspot minimum is approaching:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...larminimum.htm

Is it going to be a long-term minimum, like in 1645-1715, that resulted in a little ice-age? Who knows?

Chip H.

[mrblanche]

The Maunder Minimum was really low; I have a hard time imagining it going down to only 50 sunspots in a period of decades, but it's happened before.

But right now, we're in a heating cycle, affecting even Mars, where I hear SUV's and coal generating plants have never caught on.

[jdm124]

Why do you think that the planet is experiencing temps inside 'normal' variation, in yoiur own speak as well as propaganda you may choose?

Because the ozone hole is closing.

[robmcg]

Because the ozone hole is closing.

Ahh. A cunning ploy. To take stats from measured ozone, which in fact is at best marginally connected to climate.

In measurements we take seriously, ozone is still way higher than say 50-100yrs ago in some areas, especially sub-antarctica, and we don't know what this is doing to the nature of terrestial things like the food chain, nor how it interacts with any climate change.

On the one hand, we could worry about CO2 and on the other wonder about the voracious hi-tech fishing going on... like the Euros tuna and hake and other 'stocks'.
On the other, having despaired at capitalist fishing ethics, we could force people to acknowledge that it ain't just fish on the table, it's those seabirds, those things of beauty and amazement which are beloved to teenage girls in particular, and who would deny teenage girls? And that for reasons upon which I could not possibly comment much of the world has taken a position whereby CO2 is bad.

I think this is a default position to address the real problem which is resource depletion which is a result of excessive population.

Join with me to ban procreation. We could set up a populist party... 'Monks For Freedom'... St Thomas Aquinas as Patron, and Narziss as leader, Goldmund as Treasurer...
Oh. Sorry, the Pope has already done it...

[mrblanche]

Democrats don't usually bray about "fambly values" and lecture others about morality. Thus, theyaren't as loathsomely hypocritical as the Republicans who do - and get caught.

On the contrary. Bill and Hillary have been some of the most vocal public figures on the subject of women's rights, and yet Bill is at the very least a serial harasser and, some would say, a rapist. Yet women's groups and the Democrats who support them were willing to turn a blind eye toward his indiscretions, maybe because he said the right things, but probably just because he carries a D after his name. That, my friend, is hypocrisy, no matter who does it.

[robmcg]

People will accept a certain amount of untruthfulness if they can accept that they might have 'fallen' if confronted with the same temptations.

What the US appears to lack is charismatic embodiment of US aims...
..almost as if he Presidency has become an impossible task. And I think any prudent society should be taking a good hard look at its structure right now. Perhaps increasing the power of the Houses and reducing that of President to figurehead. More like France.

I don't think the US has had a seriously poor President in 75 years. Non-US people cannot understand the US obsession with scandal.. suggests you need a Prince Charles. He can be disliked and ridiculed but he stands for certain things. The US does the cause of republicanism no favours.

[Eric]

Democrats don't usually bray about "fambly values" and lecture others about morality. Thus, theyaren't as loathsomely hypocritical as the Republicans who do - and get caught.

On the contrary. Bill and Hillary have been some of the most vocal public figures on the subject of women's rights, and yet Bill is at the very least a serial harasser and, some would say, a rapist. Yet women's groups and the Democrats who support them were willing to turn a blind eye toward his indiscretions, maybe because he said the right things, but probably just because he carries a D after his name. That, my friend, is hypocrisy, no matter who does it.

Oh please.

You're now equating advocacy of women's rights/feminism with Bible-thumping moralizing... .

And, deeper, pointing to one Democratic pol (Clinton, your bete noire) and drawing some sort of equivalence with the wholesale co-option of the GOP by evangelical Christers is just laughable....

[mrblanche]

Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, no matter the numbers. I believe there are absolute values, and this is one of them.

[Eric]

Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, no matter the numbers. I believe there are absolute values, and this is one of them.

But it is especially grating when you add the element of unctuous sermonizing - as the GOP lately is so wont to do.