Must be something out of kilter

Ed Darrell shared this video of Alfre Woodard channeling Sojourner Truth:

YouTube Preview Image

Terrific presentation of an amazing speech.

Happy to hear that Woodard will be playing Ouiser in an upcoming production of Steel Magnolias, where she’ll be joined in the cast by Queen Latifah, Phylicia Rashad, Condola Rashad, Jill Scott and Adepero Oduye. Cool.

Speaking of great performances, if you haven’t yet seen it, be sure not to miss 8, Dustin Lance Black’s play about the U.S. District Court case on California’s anti-marriage equality Proposition 8, which you can watch for free on YouTube.

The impressive cast lives up to its billing — including George Clooney, Martin Sheen, Brad Pitt, Jamie Lee Curtis, Christine Lahti, Jane Lynch, John C. Reilly, Chris Colfer, Matthew Morrison and Matt Bomer (or, as he’s known in this house, “the ridiculously good-looking guy from White Collar“). It’s a moving, forceful and unexpectedly funny bit of storytelling. I watched it a couple of weeks ago, and looking again just now was startled to realize I’d forgotten it’s a script-in-hand production.

Martin Sheen, who has been arrested dozens times in political protests, was apparently a bad influence on George Clooney (or, actually, a good influence).

* * * * * * * * *

Pop Matters interviews Mike Doughty:

Aside from working in the traditional write-an-album-and-tour-obsessively sense, Doughty has come to embrace Internet piracy and file-sharing as a means to spread the word on his solo endeavor.

“File-sharing is great for me. I will tell people that it makes sense for me as an artist that wants people to hear stuff and is trying to make a living. Please, if you don’t buy it steal it. If you buy it, give it to someone who can steal it,” he said.

You can hear his newer stuff at MikeDoughty.com.

* * * * * * * * *

Four years ago, after Super Tuesday made it clear that the Democrats were in for a long, two-candidate race for the nomination, I wrote that I was happy with the choices:

Magic Johnson is supporting Hillary Clinton. Kareem Abdul Jabaar, meanwhile, is supporting Barack Obama.

That’s the choice: Magic or Kareem.

It’s an understandably tough call, but I’m not complaining about the options.

Two good candidates and two exciting options. Either way, we were going to make history.

I’ve seen a great deal about the current long Republican primary contest, which features not just two, but four options for voters. I haven’t seen many people expressing the enthusiasm I felt four years ago. We had Magic and Kareem — they’ve got the Washington Generals.

* * * * * * * * *

New Hampshire’s massive 400-member House of Representatives is still way too big to fill with qualified people.

Homeowners associations are useful mainly for identifying the sort of people who can’t be trusted with power.

Diana Butler Bass says “awakening.”

John Shore says “reformation.”

Jo Hilder has published an e-book: God, You Can Take My Mental Illness — Just Not the Part Where You Speak to Me.

Tony Jones has published an ebook: A Better Atonement: Beyond the Depraved Doctrine of Original Sin.

The Snatchel Project is as whimsical and pointed as its name suggests.

The nefarious global conspiracy promoting the climate-change hoax continues to spread: The oceans are in on it. So are the maple trees of New England. And both Dakotas.

Stay in touch with the Slacktivist on Facebook:

White evangelicals and 'the social upheaval of the '60s'
Seems like a thousand years to go
OotGOism: 'Whoever tries to keep their life will lose it ...'
Relitigating the Golden Rule
  • Matri

    Please, if you don’t buy it steal it. If you buy it, give it to someone who can steal it,” he said.

    There’s something to don’t hear every day. Also, guaranteed to give the RIAA/MPAA conniptions.

  • Lunch Meat

    The Sanford City Commission has voted “No confidence” in Chief Lee. I don’t know enough about what that will mean to really be able to comment on that, so I’ll just leave it here. 
    http://www.wesh.com/r/30734271/detail.html

  • http://stealingcommas.blogspot.com/ chris the cynic

    Regarding the link to The Nation, 

    Twice in the past two days I’ve been in conversations where people wondered if the weather was really different, or it just felt that way because we expected it to be.  Now I have somewhere to point them.

  • P J Evans

    It’s been in the seventies in International Falls, Minnesota. Their previous record high for this season was in the mid-50s.

  • Emcee, cubed

    New Hampshire’s massive 400-member House of Representatives is still way too big to fill with qualified people.

    Not that I disagree with you, but being as the NH House is not only Republican-controlled, but actually have a veto-proof majority, and still overwhelming voted to defeat a bill that would have repealed marriage equality (or as I like to call it, equality) in the state, I can’t really fault them too much today. Maybe tomorrow.

  • Gabe Nichols

    I really like the “Ain’t I a woman speech”, I was really sad when I learned that there is good evidence she never gave anything like it.  To start with Truth wasn’t southern and so the dialect was all wrong.  She was born in NY and spoke dutch as her only language until she was 9.  She had 5 children rather than 13 and only one was sold away (a lot of her radicalization had to do with the court battles to get her son back after New York’s manumission went into effect) She was a powerful educated woman but that didn’t fit into the story others wanted to tell and so the abolition movement as a whole lied about one of it’s most powerful early voices to fit the story they felt would be most tactically useful.

  • Quinnthebrain

    Yep.  I gave a lecture on her last year, and discovered in my prep research just that evidence.  However, it still says something about how she is remembered.  She did on occasion mimic a southern accent b/c people expected a former slave to have one.

    Still, an utterly amazing woman with an amazing history.  Her autobiography (as told to another, since she herself did not write) is available here: http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/truth/1850/1850.html

  • Matri

    so the abolition movement as a whole lied about one of it’s most
    powerful early voices to fit the story they felt would be most
    tactically useful.

    Frankly, I’d be shock if they didn’t lie.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    Fwiw, I asked someone from NH about the size of their legislature. After he slapped me for the impropriety, he explained that it’s actually intentional. The idea is that it’s meant to be too big for carreer politicians to thrive, and instead be a place where Regular Ordinary People serve A Term or Two then go back to their day jobs.

    Which almost sounds noble when you put it that way. Of course, we live in the real world, so.
     

  • Michael Pullmann

    Let us not go to New Hampshire. It is a silly place.

  • JessicaR

    I’m in Maryland, and yeah, it seems we got 10 days of spring and skipped right into early summer.

  • Lori

    It was 83 today in northern Indiana. I didn’t see any information about what record we broke, but I’m pretty sure we did since Fort Wayne broke one from 1910. 

  • Anonymous

    I’ve seen a great deal about the current long Republican primary contest, which features not just two, but four options for voters. I haven’t seen many people expressing the enthusiasm I felt four years ago. We had Magic and Kareem — they’ve got the Washington Generals.

    On Facebook one of my liberal friends recently asked his conservative pals for preferences among the final four candidates.  I responded that I don’t like Gingrich, and Santorum is too extreme on some social issues.  Romney doesn’t inspire me, but he’s competent and pragmatic.  The consensus among the conservative friends was pretty much that Romney will be the nominee (which is a conclusion I reached more than a year ago.)  Some of the friends struggled with this reality, but acknowledged that of the four, Romney would pose the biggest challenge to Obama.

    While it’s true that many conservatives are not enthusiastic about the presumptive nominee, Republicans do lead Democrats in overall voter enthusiasm by a 53%-45% margin, according to a Gallup survey taken late last month.  By comparison, at this time in 2008 Democrats led Republicans in voter enthusiasm by a 79%-44% margin.  (Independents who lean to the right are included in the Republican total, and independents who lean to the left are included in the Democrat total.)

  • Lori

    While it’s true that many conservatives are not enthusiastic about the presumptive nominee, Republicans do lead Democrats in overall voter enthusiasm by a 53%-45% margin, according to a Gallup survey taken late last month.  By comparison, at this time in 2008 Democrats led Republicans in voter enthusiasm by a 79%-44% margin.  (Independents who lean to the right are included in the Republican total, and independents who lean to the left are included in the Democrat total.) 

    Are you really this clueless or do you just enjoy having people explain this stuff to you again and again and again?

    Of course the GOP had greater enthusiasm than the Dems last month. The GOP is currently running a campaign, the Dems are not. This time in 2008 the Dems were running a campaign. The figures that you list actually make Fred’s point. At this time in the 2008 race Dems were very enthusiastic about their candidates, much more so than Republicans are now.

    Another thing worth pointing out is that a poll from a month ago is pretty out-dated. The GOP race has gotten quite a bit weirder and nastier in the last month and that doesn’t tend to increase voter enthusiasm.

  • Anonymous

    Of course the GOP had greater enthusiasm than the Dems last month. The GOP is currently running a campaign, the Dems are not. This time in 2008 the Dems were running a campaign.
     
    I am aware of that.  Here are the Gallup’s numbers for the past four elections.

    Democrat enthusiasm
    February 2012 – 45%
    February 2008 – 79%
    Jan-Feb 2004 – 59%
    January 2000 – 39%
     
    Republican enthusiasm
    February 2012 – 53%
    February 2008 – 44%
    Jan-Feb 2004 – 53%
    January 2000 – 51%

    In 2004 the Democrats had a contested primary, while the Republicans did not.  Yet the enthusiasm gap (the Democrats’ lead in enthusiasm) nine months before the election was only six points (59-53) — slightly less than the current gap, but within the margin of error.
     
    And the point is an early enthusiasm gap is an predictor of the enthusiasm gap at election time with the caveat that Republicans seem to close the gap as the election approaches.

    Democrats were extremely enthusiastic about the 2008 election.  Their 35% lead in enthusiasm in February (79-44) translated into a 14% lead on the days before the election (73-59). 
     
    By comparison, the Democrats’ 6% lead in 2004 in a contested primary versus an incumbent president — the same scenario as 2012 if you reverse the parties — translated to a toss-up as the election approached. (It was GOP 68- Dem 67 three weeks before the election. )
     
    Another thing worth pointing out is that a poll from a month ago is pretty out-dated.

    It’s valid for comparison with the same point in previous election cycles.

  • Lori

    So aunursa, what is it with you and polls? I’m not going to deal with your post (not worth it), but I really would like to know why you think that tossing up numbers from random polls is something worth doing again and again and again. You don’t seem to have any other way to talk about political issues. If all you can or want do do is toss polls around there are places where other poll obsessives hang out. Why aren’t you there?

  • Anonymous

    Lori: Since your question is loaded and based on a false premise, I’m not going to deal with it.  (It’s not worth it.)

    Other than to say, “I like it here.”

  • JessicaR

    You know, I’m starting to realize it’s not for nothing that in The Dead Zone, Stephen King has the villainous Greg Stillson begin his rise to power in the NH State House…

  • Anonymous

    Following another link in the Better Atonement link, I found ‘Anyone who has held a new-born infant in their arms knows that baby is sacred – not “totally depraved.”‘ This person who said that is an idiot who knows nothing about the human mind. A newborn infant is adorable because we are programmed to find them adorable for reproductive reasons, because without that programming, we would bash the selfish little beasts brains in within a week. If anything, the infant’s mind represents the absolute worst of morality; constantly demanding on a whim without any thought for the comfort of others. We forgive this mindset only because we can’t reasonably expect any higher morality from it, but if the child is not educated things like empathy and sound reasoning, he won’t get better with time, just become larger. That’s why we raise children instead of dumping them off in the wild when we first have them like some other animals do.

    Anyway, that rant aside, the book itself may be worth a read.

  • Matt Dick

    Homeowners associations are useful mainly for identifying the sort of people who can’t be trusted with power.

    No truer words have ever been written.

  • Guest-again

    ‘There’s something [you] don’t hear every day’
    That’s because many places with commenting policies are careful to ensure that such thoughts remain unheard (much like Google simply not displaying search results when torrent is used as a key word). And of course, as most sites rely on advertising for revenue, this provides a lever of control to help ensure that people do not get paid to spread such ideas.

    Ironically, our current forum host would be unlikely to post such information at his old site, and if he did, it would likely be silently deleted – the former slacktivist site has a very, very strict policy on never, ever infringing on copyright. (Except when they do – but the fact that no one commenting at the old site ever gave permission for the new site to use their comments is a grey area, at worst, according to the new site owners, and not the wholesale theft of intellectual property as a method to ensure increased visibility in search engines as a way to not fairly pay for the publicity provided by those whose copyrights are being infringed – yeah, I know how the Ass.es speak, including how they defend their own breaking of the rules – Sony rootkit comes to mind as exhibit A)

  • Matri

    Sony rootkit comes to mind

    Ahh, that little fiasco. They still aren’t owning up to ever doing anything wrong.

    Their response thus far is along the lines of “And we would have gotten away with it if it weren’t for you meddling kids and your dog!

  • http://twitter.com/shutsumon Becka Sutton

     Never mind that. Who remembers when the RIAA wanted to bomb our computers? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/05/04/riaa_attacking_our_culture/

  • Dan Audy

     I don’t believe that transfering comments from the old site is even a grey area at all.  It appears, based on my legal knowledge and the user agreements for TypePad and TypePad Connect that you grant a non-exclusive license to the use of your copyright by commenting.  It isn’t consistently clear on whether that license only applies to TypePad and TypePad Connect or if the blog owner also receives one as well.  Even if the TypePad agreements don’t grant Fred a license overtly, the simple act of submitting a comment clearly grants him on under the interpretation of Implied Licenses.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    The weather’s gone all fuckin’ weird here. Winter? What winter? The snow doesn’t even stick anymore. Used to be at least once in the winter the snow’d stick overnight. Now it just vanishes into slush.

    Next person who claims it’s all just a ~natural phenomenon~ is gonna get the “Are you incredibly dense?” look from me: (-_-)

  • Twig

    A newborn infant is adorable because we are programmed to find them
    adorable for reproductive reasons, because without that programming, we
    would bash the selfish little beasts brains in within a week.

    You know, you and the ‘parasite’ people really creep me out just as much as the people who want me to have babies all the time and no control over my body.

    The rhetoric, it is broke.

  • Anonymous

    Liked for the sentiment, though I don’t think that comment was all that bad. When people really do start talking about ‘breeders,’ and ‘parasites,’ I get just a tiny bit ticked. Pointing out that babies are really annoying is fair game, since unless it’s your baby (in the sense that you love and care for zie), they pretty much… are.

  • http://stealingcommas.blogspot.com/ chris the cynic

    Romney would pose the biggest challenge to Obama.

    Disturbing as what I’m about to say is, that’s not necessarily true.  Santorum actually looks just about as electable as Romney.  In head to head polls against Obama he is running about 2.5 points behind Romney right now, but this far out that doesn’t mean much of anything especially given that the entire dynamic is likely to change the moment one of them becomes an actual, rather than hypothetical, nominee.  He does have weaknesses (insofar as being a complete asshole is a weakness) that will apply in a general election but not in the Republican primary but so too does Romney.

    His biggest disadvantages so far have been things that can be erased almost instantly if he were to become the nominee. His ground game sucks and his fundraising is for crap and the establishment wants him to fall in a hole and die.  That’s because he’s running against other Republicans.  If he were to win the nomination and run against Obama the establishment would be doing everything they could to help him (they don’t like him, but they really don’t like Obama) his ground game would improve just by virtue of the fact that any operatives or activists who didn’t want Obama to win would have to work for him, and his fundraising would improve for the same reason.

    One could argue that that wouldn’t happen if Santorum were the nominee because he’d turn off the people necessary, but there’s a problem with arguing that Santorum is less electable than Romney for that reason: the foundation on which Romney’s entire electability argument is based is the belief that Republicans will rally around the nominee whoever that turns out to be.  If it isn’t true then that might mean that Santorum is less electable than he appears, but it means that the same is true for Romney.

    You’d like to think that Santorum couldn’t win a general election because he’s, well, Santorum.  The truth is that it looks like he’d fare about as well as Romney.  There’s even an argument to be made that he might do better.

    Of course, at this point it doesn’t really matter.  Santorum has pretty much reached the point where he can’t win.  Unless Romney screws up something big, and possibly even then, Romney is going to get the nomination.

  • Anonymous

    In head to head polls against Obama he is running about 2.5 points behind Romney right now

    Which polls are those?  I’ve mostly been seeing Obama up by 3 – 5.  I’m just curious which ones you’re seeing.  I agree that’s pretty much totally meaningless at this point – and I’m concerned about aunsura’s datapoint that Democratic enthusiasm is depressed.

    I’m not so sure that Romney can run away from these primary positions as fast as he thinks he can.  Obama has his flaws, but he wasn’t born yesterday, and he’s going to flog Romney on his “I like to fire people”, “Corporations are people my friend” gaffes mercilessly until November.

    The interesting / frustrating thing about this election is the dueling narratives.  Romney has acquired the narrative of being an out of touch weirdo who is running for president because he’s a bored rich guy.  As far as I can tell this is probably true.  He’s certainly not done anything to disperse that aura.   Obama has meanwhile, inexplicably, acquired the narrative on the left that he’s kind of ineffectual – this is just as totally absurd as the idea that he’s a Muslim Kenyan Socialist – and yet many of the people on “his team” believe it – and this is preventing Obama from running as the transformational candidate that he like to play on TV.

    So it comes down to whether Barack Obama can spin the actual truth better than Mitt Romney can spin a web of lies upon lies.   Normally, my cynical self would go “liar, hands down” but Romney appears to be so totally out-of-touch I’m not sure that Obama’s re-election is a lost cause.

  • Anonymous

    Which polls are those?  I’ve mostly been seeing Obama up by 3 – 5.  I’m just curious which ones you’re seeing.

    When considering the accuracy of poll results, be sure to check the sampling data.  Some polls that give Obama a lead may have oversampled Democrats and/or undersampled Republicans.  I’ve seen some polls in which the difference between the % of Democrats and the % of Republicans was greater than in the 2008 election — even though it’s almost certain that the difference will be much closer.

    Also check to see whether the pollster surveyed all adults, registered voters, or likely voters.  In general the aggregate of registered voters are slightly more conservative than the adult population in general, and likely voters are overall slightly more conservative than registered voters.  (According to my high school poli-sci teacher, Republicans would win ever election by 6:00 PM.  The Democrats who get off work determine who wins — based on whether they go home or go vote.)

  • P J Evans

    Rasmussen, I take it. Which has a well-known bias in favor of Republicans. (There are other polls which are less biased.) Try this:

    Quinnipiac. March 13-18. Virginia RVs. ±3.1%. (Feb results.)

        Obama: 50 (47)
        Romney: 42 (43)

        Mitt Romney Net Favorability:
        Oct 2011: +9 (38/29)
        Dec 2011: +10 (37/27)
        Feb 2012: +4 (43/39)
        Mar 2012: -7 (36/43)

        President Obama Net Favorability:
        Oct 2011: -4 (45/49)
        Dec 2011: -2 (45/47)
        Feb 2012: +3 (50/47)
        Mar 2012: +7 (51/44)

  • http://stealingcommas.blogspot.com/ chris the cynic

    Sorry I was unclear about that.  What I was saying was kind of complicated and I passed over it way too quickly.

    On average Obama is running ahead of both Romney and Santorum in direct polls.  That’s not what I was talking about.  I was talking about the difference between the numbers Romney and Santorum get in those polls.

    If you ask people who they would vote for in the general election, Obama or Romney, you get a number for each (both under 50%, for whatever it’s worth)  so say Romney’s support is X.  If you ask people who they would vote for in the general election if their options are Obama and Santorum then you again get a number for each (and again both are under 50%) say that Santorum’s support is Y.

    X is on average higher than Y by 2.5 points.  (But both are lower than Obama’s average.)  So Romney does do better in hypothetical general elections, and 2.5 percent is not nothing (it would have shifted the popular vote to John Kerry in 2004, for example) but it does not appear to be an indicator of a major difference in electablity between Santorum and Romney.

    If Romney wants to convince people that he can get a majority in the general he needs to claim that the present polls will miss the eventual mark by more than twice the margin that separates himself from Santorum in those same polls.

  • Anonymous

    “I was talking about the difference between the numbers Romney and Santorum get in those polls.”

    I think a big factor is where the 2.5% of extra support for Romney comes from. Santorum is more popular than Romney in a bunch of states that either of them would win anyway. And Romney is more popular than Santorum in a bunch of states that neither can win. The question is who has a better chance against Obama for those other 140 or so electoral votes. Purple Strategies, which tracks the 12 likeliest swing states, just released their March numbers:

    President Obama maintains a steady advantage against both Republican challengers in the key swing states that will determine the 2012 general election. He currently leads Romney by 4 points (48% to 44%) and holds a majority against Rick Santorum (50% to 42%).

    There’s a long way till this election, but even with his very low approval ratings- which have nowhere to go but up- Romney is within striking distance.

    Interestingly, Santorum and Romney seem to compete equally well in the Midwest and Western swing states, while Romney matches up better against the President in the Heartland and Southern swing states.

    http://www.purplestrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/MarchPurplePoll12.pdf 

  • Anonymous

    “Four years ago, after Super Tuesday made it clear that the Democrats were in for a long, two-candidate race for the nomination…”

    Not really.  I was reading Nate Silver, and by Super Tuesday he was explaining very clearly why the nomination was a done deal.  The mainstream media glossed over this, but the mainstream media has a vested interest in a horse race.  They not merely are not above lying to keep their audience thinking there is a horse race:  I doubt that it ever occurred to anyone with any power in the mainstream media to *not* lie about this. 

    The same is true today.  Romney is the Republican candidate.  This has been apparent for weeks.  The only question is how long the media will be able to keep up the pretense.  A Santorum win in Illinois would have given it a few more weeks of life.  As it is, I think even the media will be forced to admit the obvious pretty soon.

  • Anonymous

    The race is officially over if Romney wins in Santorum’s home state.  Santorum currently has a 19 point lead, but if Romney is seen as inevitable, Santorum’s lead could evaporate.  Pennsylvanians go to the polls on April 24th.

  • Anonymous

    “The race is officially over if Romney wins in Santorum’s home state.”

    The will be “officially” over with the completion of the last primary election and caucus.  The race will be mathematically over when Romney has a majority of delegates committed to vote for him on the first ballot.  The race has been de facto over, in the sense that only some very low probability combination of events could lead to any result other than a Romney nomination, for some weeks now.

  • Anonymous

    I stand corrected.

  • PurpleGirl

    Martin Sheen, who has been arrested dozens times in political protests,

    A number of those arrests were at protests outside the offices of the Business Roundtable.  I once interviewed there for a job as a copyeditor/proofreader. The comment was made by one of the people I spoke with that “working here you get the opportunity to see Martin Sheen, and sometimes see him get arrested.” (paraphrased)

  • Anonymous

    If I can tap into the political Slackmind here, I’m curious as to why Ron Paul is barely placing.  I mean, I know why I am not fond of him, but I would have thought that since he isn’t the clown, the wet fish, or the egomaniac that he’d be more attractive to voters if for nothing else than his economic libertarianism.

  • Anonymous

    Some of his foreign policy positions are insane and he is unelectable.  One or both of those reasons would turn off most primary voters.

  • Anonymous

     Well, I’m sort of asking why he’s unelectable.  But I can understand about his foreign policy being at issue.

    JessicaR, I can understand that, too, I guess — him not being visibly pious enough could have an effect, I guess.

    I ask because a pagan lady I have known for years has become a staunch Rand supporter because she is utterly abhorred by the Obama health care reform plan.  (She staunchly refuses to have anything to do with hospitals and the medical industry, and does not feel she should be mandated to pay into any sort of health plan if she doesn’t plan on making use of it herself at all ever.  Knowing her convictions, I’m pretty certain she would rather die than go to a hospital, but… well, there you go.  It’s… distressing that after all this time, all that we’ve been through, this would turn out to be the one issue that would drive us apart.)

  • Anonymous

    Well, I’m sort of asking why he’s unelectable.

    Because the general election is composed of independent and Democrat voters, very few of whom would give him their vote.  And most Republican voters want their nominee to defeat Obama.

    Gingrinch and Santorum wouldn’t do well among the Ind’s and Dem’s, but they would get some votes, and there is a slight chance that one of them could win.  In a January poll, Romney beat Obama 50-40 among independents.  Almost certainly the incumbent would clean up among independents in a two-way race with Paul.

    And there are a lot of Republicans who would sit out the election if Paul were the Republican nominee.  For example, the person whose comment you’re reading right now.

  • Anonymous

     Uh… okay?

  • Anonymous

    I wrote a few points and then found some polls that directly contradicted two of my points.  Since there is no option to delete a comment (Thanks Discus!), I deleted the contents of my comments.  Sorry for any confusion.

  • Anonymous

     Oh, I understand!  No worries, and thank you for the explanation, not only for that but for my questions! ^_^

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    She’s already paying for things she doesn’t personally like, at least I would guess so. Like war. But then, I doubt any kind of logic would work on her at the stage she’s gotten to. 

    I’m at the point where I cannot be friends with, or even friendly with, anyone who’s against health care reform, because their opinion is that I should be in horrible pain and unable to work for the rest of my life. My own body constantly reminds me how broken our government is — and I’m way better off than many people.

  • Tonio

    My state’s primary is not until early April, and so far the only new signs and bumper stickers I’ve seen have been for Obama and Paul. None for Romney or Santorum or Gingrich – how strange.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    Same here, and I live in Florida. I haven’t even seen anyone post online (on youtube or message boards) in support of Romney or Santorum or Gingrich. I see people who are pro-Obama, people who are anti-Obama, and people who support Ron Paul. The last group regularly gets dogpiled by everyone else, though.

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul’s supporters are like circumcision opponents: they are small in number but highly enthusiastic.  I remember 2008 online polls on conservative websites that were spammed by Paul’s supporters to give the illusion that he had a higher level support than he really had.

  • JessicaR

    I think it’s because Ron Paul is an actual crank. He’s repulsive, but he’s not a war hawk, he’s a staunch isolationist, and that doesn’t play well to the Guns, God, and Glory crowd. He’s racist and anti-choice, but he’s not vocally religious so that doesn’t play well to the Bible thumpers. In short I have some hope for the Republic because of how poorly he does. Not that he doesn’t need to not be on the national stage in the first place.

  • Anonymous

    Homeowners associations are useful mainly for identifying the sort of people who can’t be trusted with power.

    The answer to that is “all of them.”  No HOAs needed.

  • Anonymous

    OT: This NY Times op-ed references a UVA study on political sterotypes.  Researchers asked respondents to answer moral questions based on how a “typical liberal” or “typical conservative” would respond.  The study found that conservatives better understood liberals than liberals understood conservatives.  Specifically, “Moderates and conservatives were adept at guessing how liberals would answer questions [of morality]. Liberals, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal,” were least able to put themselves in the minds of their adversaries and guess how conservatives would answer.”

    The op-ed author went on to review a new book that explains how liberals and conservatives see morality.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    You just claimed that Lori’s question about your obsession with polls was based on a false premise. Then you turned right around and posted about yet another poll!

    Why do you like polls so much?

  • Anonymous

    To be fair, that’s not a poll, it’s a psychology study.

    I’m not a psychologist, but on it’s face it seems pretty solid.  I have a small problem with some of the questions, but it’s sort of picky, and I doubt it would affect the results substantially.

    I haven’t read it it’s entirety, but I think the actual conclusions are a bit less inflammatory than Kristof and @aunursa:disqus think.  It isn’t just conservatives that liberals don’t understand – they also don’t understand other liberals.  By about the same amount that they don’t understand conservatives.  (My statistics are pretty rusty.)  And it isn’t strictly that they don’t understand them, it’s that they don’t reason along the same lines, so they see themselves as “opposed” to conservative and thus that conservatives must lie somewhere along the same axes.  For example, a conservative believes a soldier should always follow orders because that’s his duty.  A liberal believes a soldier should NOT follow disagreeable orders because it causes harm to people.   The liberal concludes that the reason that a conservative would conclude a soldier should always follow orders is because he thinks hurting people is okay, not because he thinks that following orders is the greater moral good over not hurting people – this informs his mental picture of a conservative.  The conservative understand that you shouldn’t hurt people – so can guess that the liberals think this is the reason a soldier shouldn’t always follow orders, he just ranks it below the solider doing his duty at all time.

    That’s actually the question I have a problem with from the study, and I think it’s the main problem with the methodology.  There’s really no room for situational ethics there – and I think most liberals would agree that soldiers should follow all lawful orders, not just orders they agree with with.  (Which is how the question is phrased.) Most of the questions with that sort of problem would play the liberals weak side while playing to the conservative strength.  Most of the liberals I know can (and do) construct fairly elaborate scenarios where people’s actions are justified no matter how awful they seem to be at first.

    The other, separate issue is that my understanding of conservatism and conservatives has no bearing whatsoever on how wrong they are.  Particularly on economic issue, conservative philosophy is one giant ass counter-factual.  It doesn’t matter how much I think it hurts people, or how much they claim it’s a moral hazard, subtracting demand from the economy by canceling UI and food stamps will cause the economy to contract.  Say what you want Rick Santorum being a monster (I will) at least he’s honest about not caring what happens to the unemployed.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NR2MMC4EJXJWJMLH6IF457XL64 Alex B

    I agree with this and you can see very clear examples of it even on this very site. Conservatives don’t like the birth control mandate because they’re misogynists. While it’s true that there is some underlying societal misogyny contributing to that view, pigs will fly out of my ass at warp 10 before you’ll get an actual conservative to admit that.

  • Anonymous

    Conservatives don’t like the birth control mandate because they’re misogynists.

    This is a perfect example of a situation in which a poll comes in handy.  Based on a recent CBS News/New York Times survey, those who argue that conservatives who oppose the contraception mandate are misogynists must conclude that 39% of Democrats, 57% of independents, and 53% of women are misogynists.  Or attempt to give a gobbledygook explanation for significant opposition other demographic groups.

  • Lori

     

    This is a perfect example of a situation in which a poll comes in
    handy.  Based on a recent CBS News/New York Times survey, those who
    argue that conservatives who oppose the contraception mandate are
    misogynists — must conclude that 39% of Democrats, 57% of independents,
    and 53% of women are misogynists.  Or attempt to give a
    gobbledygook explanation for significant opposition to the mandate among
    these other demographic groups.  

    1) I’m not sure where you got the idea that Democrats, Independents and women can’t be misogynists, or at least heavily influenced by misogyny.

    2) Did the poll include any questions that would be useful in determining if the people being polled actually understood the mandate? Because if not then the numbers are pretty meaningless. That’s not gobbledygook.

  • Anonymous

    1) I don’t see any disagreement between your response and my comment.

    2) Did I hear you correctly?  Are you suggesting that opposition to the mandate expressed by Republicans is based on their understanding of the issue — and therefore can be attributed to their misogyny; while the opposition expressed by Democrats, independents, and women* is based on their lack of understanding of the issue?  The idea that Republicans are better informed on the issue than Democrats is not what I would have expected from you.  ;-)

    * For anyone needing clarification, the “women” demographic includes Democrats, Republicans, and independents; therefore there is a large overlap.

    At any rate, here is the wording of the questions that deal with this subject:

    73. Do you think health insurance plans for all employees should have to cover the full cost of birth control for their female employees, or should employers be allowed to opt out of covering that based on religious or moral objections?
    * Cover birth control
    * Allowed to opt out
    * Depends
    * Don’t know/no answer
     
    74. What about for religiously affiliated employers, such as a hospital or university? Do you think their health insurance plans for all employees should have to cover the full cost of birth control for their female employees, or should they be allowed to opt out of covering that based on religious or moral objections?
    * Cover birth control
    * Allowed to opt out
    * Depends
    * Don’t know/no answer
     
    76. Do you think the debate on this issue is more about religious freedom or more about women’s health and their rights?
    * Religious freedom
    * Women’s health/rights
    * Both
    * Don’t know/no answer

  • Lori

     

    2) Did I hear you correctly?  Are you suggesting that opposition to the
    mandate expressed by Republicans is based on their understanding of the
    issue — and therefore can be attributed to their misogyny; while the
    opposition expressed by Democrats, independents, and women* is based on
    their lack of understanding of the issue?  The idea that Republicans are
    better informed on the issue than Democrats is not what I would have
    expected from you.  ;-)  

    Don’t try to be cute. It doesn’t become you.

    Do you think the debate on this issue is more about religious freedom or more about women’s health and their rights? 

    Anyone who answered religious freedom is badly enough informed about the issue that their answers to the rest of the questions is of dubious worth.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    Misogynists don’t admit they’re misogynists and racists don’t admit that they’re racists. Conservatives tie themselves up in knots to pretend that the reasons they believe certain unsupportable things is because of some practical or moral matter (“moral” nearly always translating as “what non-cis non-straight non-white non-males choose to do sexually.”) Humanity has a natural tendency to do this. Education and critical thinking can counteract it.

    That study takes what people say about themselves at face value and phrases complex questions in ways that force people into yes or no answers. 

  • Anonymous

    Please learn the difference between an opinion poll and a study.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    It’s a “study” that was conducted like a poll. 

    Why do you like polls so much?

  • Anonymous

    I like to know what other people think.  I like to know what people in general think.  I like to know what to expect in predictions of upcoming elections.  I like to know whether certain views on certain issues are in the mainstream or in the extreme.  I like to know how views compare among different demographics.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    You will get none of those things from polls.

    Look up “Penn & Teller polls are bullshit.”

  • Anonymous

    I enjoy Penn & Teller, but they are not the final authority on any subject.

  • Tricksterson

    You’re right.  That would be George Carlin.

  • Tricksterson

    He likes the polls that tell him what he wants to hear.  In that he’s little different from anyone else.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    The homeowners association article reminds me of a book I read often as a child — The Gammage Cup by Carol Kendall. There was a peaceful town of “Minnipins” who retained the peace by insisting everyone conform. A handful of people refused to conform, making the rest of the town uncomfortable. The whole thing came to a head when one of the people who didn’t fit in, an artist named Cherry, painted her door scarlet instead of green. A government official painted over her door in the night, and the next day, the handful of non-conformists painted their own doors different colors. The town ended up exiling them, then they saved the town from an invasion and were welcomed back.

  • rizzo

    Most of the bands I listen to give away all or most of their music for free.  A real musician doesn’t care how much money they make, they just want people to hear their music.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NR2MMC4EJXJWJMLH6IF457XL64 Alex B

    Please don’t attempt to speak for humanity on what constitutes a “real musician”.

  • Lori

     

    A real musician doesn’t care how much money they make, they just want people to hear their music. 

    Where did people get this idea that “real” artists don’t want to eat?

  • Anonymous

    I think In-N-Out shouln’t care how much money they make, they should just want people to eat their burgers.

    I think dentists shouldn’t care how much money they make, they should just want people to have nice looking teeth.

    I think the people who stack the shelves at Target shouldn’t care how much money they make, they should just want the store shelves to be neat and tidy.

    I think police officers shouldn’t care how much money they make, they should just want the rest of us to be safe in our communities.

    I think my landlady shouldn’t care how much money she makes, she should just want me to have a roof over my head.

    Screw you, and the internet you rode in on.

  • Anonymous

    And that’s what baffles me.  The only people I hear coming out in favor of Santorum or to a lesser extent Romney — and almost none for Gingrich, by the way — are people who are very strongly social conservatives and religious conservatives.  More often than not I hear people praising Ron Paul and bemoaning the ‘establishment’ is preventing him from getting any traction.  I get that his foreign policy is really kind of whacked, but what makes him unelectable?  Why is a guy who is hitting all of the economic talking points that libertarians and fiscal conservatives seem to love, barely even placing on the polls or the primaries?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    How do the Republicans vote for their Presidential candidates? If by delegates then I’m assuming that the delegates have probably already plumped one way or another for their preferred candidate and the rest of the sorry-assed business is just a big dog and pony show to convince the world at large that there’s a race of ideas at all*.

    * as opposed to all of them basically being on the same page about a tax cut curing everything.

  • http://stealingcommas.blogspot.com/ chris the cynic

    At the convention there will be a bunch of delegates who will vote for the nominee.  A majority is required for one to become the nominee.  The delegates a chosen in various ways.  Some of them are pledged to support a specific candidate, some are not.  How pledged delegates are chosen varies from state to state.

    Some states are winner take all, some are proportional, some are some combination of the two, some are winner take all by congressional district, some are even more confusing.

    A big part of what Ron Paul is doing takes place after the popular vote has been cast.  He’s trying to maximize the amount of delegates that he gets via working during the delegate selection process.  In at least one state his supporters teamed up with Romney supporters against Santorum supporters during that part of the process meaning that Santorum is going to end up with fewer delegates than you would expect based on the votes cast.

    Most of the reporting on the delegate numbers is on estimates, and those estimates probably don’t take into account the stuff I mentioned in the previous paragraph.

    There are even more complexities in the process, but I think that basically covers most of it.

    When the primaries and caucuses and such are all over, a bunch of delegates will have been selected, they will then go to Tampa where they’ll vote on who gets to be the Republican nominee.  Before the most recent primary there was a chance that Santorum could be that person, but he’s really blown his chance to change things, which means that even if Romney doesn’t have a majority of delegates pledged to him when the convention starts, he’s still likely to be chosen.  And more likely than not he will have a majority when the convention starts.

  • P J Evans

    His supporters have been trying to get delegates by, practically speaking, trying to take over party meetings and force them to give delegates to Paul. This has gotten them thrown out of a number of meetings, and threatened with arrest. (Great way to convince people to support your candidate, yes?)

  • Tricksterson

    Who’s supporters, Paul’s or Santorum’s?

  • P J Evans

    Paul’s, in all the instances I’ve heard of.

  • Anonymous

     

    as opposed to all of them basically being on the same page about a tax cut for the rich curing everything.

    Fixed that for you. We saw with the payroll tax fight that they’re against tax cuts that aren’t targeted narrowly towards the fifth quintile.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

     

    We saw with the payroll tax fight that they’re against tax cuts that aren’t targeted narrowly towards the fifth quintile.

    Considering that these are largely the people who made a big deal out of promising to Never Raise Any Taxes Ever, and explicitly called allowing tax cuts to expire “raising taxes,” I think this tells us everything we need to know about them.

  • Rissa

    While I prefer Alice Walker’s recitation by a teeny margin, Alfre Woodard does a phenomenal job too. Riveting.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X