Wednesday’s Loose Thread

Eight comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  Arch_Druid on November 11 at 10:28 a.m.

  Some letters appearing in the CDA Press this morning that deserves comment. Kate Vieslmeyer WRITES her husband’s letter in which he is making the argument (birther movement) that President Obama MUST provide a legitimate birth certificate… That brings about understandable reactions from other readers. Then Ms. Vieslmeyer comes back and whines about it. Oh, excuse me, why does Obama need to provide a verifiable birth certificate when he already had?

  Jeff Tyler accuses the CDA gvt of engaging in the “tactics of intimidation.” So, how does that account for all other low voter turnout elections in history? Or does it? Sounds like he is a Souza or CAVEr fan.

  James Hollingsworth might have a good letter but for one reason, money actually given to a “religious” organization that ultimately proves beneficial to the community as a whole is wrong, but Hollingsworth seeking to enter office to pass laws on the behalf of religious interests is right. That puts the rest of his commentary into dispute.

• 

  richard on November 11 at 2:10 p.m.

  I was watching MSNBC a few days ago and I was listening to three pundits talking - pretty much liberals all - and they were talking about the health care bill and those in congress and pundits and politicos who oppose it.

  I heard this group of pundits use the word “extremist” or “extreme” three times when either referencing someone in opposition or the position itself.

  I thought that was a little odd, seeing as how a few minutes later when they were speaking of the Ft. Hood shootting, they were critical of those who labeled the shooter an … extremist! - or a radical or a jihadist.

  Funny how the left can be so disengenuous and hypocritical with their “tolerance” of people who kill Americans - when at the same time they can be so intolerant of Americans who disagree with THEIR political views.

  Just saying!

• 

  zelda on November 11 at 4:11 p.m.

  Apparently Sarah Palin’s book has leaked and The Page has some details about what’s in it. http://thepage.time.com/whats-in-sarah-palins-book/

  Highlights: It has only five chapters, no index, bashes the national media and she settles some scores with people in the McCain camp.

  Some speculate that the lack of an index indicates the lack of intellectual heft, but others say it’s a jab at the Beltway crowd that immediately zooms to a new book’s index to find their name.

• 

  richard on November 11 at 5:48 p.m.

  Sounds like a definite lack of “intellectual heft.” Writing a book is the simple part; but making that index requires exceptional intellectual acuity that is often not found in women who profess conservatism, graduate from a university in Idaho, and then live in a small town in Alaska!

  Obviously way above her head and anyone who would actually publish her book.

  Silly elitists! They have it correct once again.

• 

  zelda on November 11 at 6:30 p.m.

  You can judge a book by the quality of its index (or lack thereof). Maybe someday a biographer will write a thoroughly researched book about Sarah Palin and it will have an index.

  Palin’s book sounds like the kind that used to be published by the deservedly defunct ReganPress.

• 

  richard on November 11 at 8:13 p.m.

  Or you can judge a book by who wrote it, which is to pre-judge -index or no index.

  I have read several interesting books wher ethe author offered his or her point of view … without an index. Sounds awfully “purist.”

  Not every book is designed to be a “treatise” of acedemic purity. Sometimes they are just fun, or revealing, or interesting.

  I guess it is uniportant to the “uncontaminated” that it will reach millions of people or that it has much more popular appeal than, say, the preachy, boorish, “It takes a Village.”

  Just be sure to shield your eyes from the “popular” section when you venture into Borders.

• 

  spokelooneh on November 11 at 11:57 p.m.

  No wonder Palin forbade any recording devices at her speech on Monday, I mean her gaffs are as legendary as Biden’s, though this one may take the cake:

  “In an speech to a Minnesota anti-abortion crowd last week, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin seemed to see a conspiracy in a decision to put “In God We Trust” on the edge — rather than the face — of new presidential dollar coins.

  “She began her remarks with a puzzling commentary on the design of newly minted dollar coins,” Politico wrote. “Noting that there had been a lot of “change” of late, Palin recalled a recent conversation with a friend about how the phrase “In God We Trust” had been moved to the edge of the new coins.

  “Who calls a shot like that?” she inquired. “Who makes a decision like that?”

  “It’s a disturbing trend,” she added.

  Turns out, the decision was made by former Republican President George W. Bush, and approved in 2005.

  And Fox fact-checked Palin’s claim. In the clip below, Fox’s Brett Baier notes that the decision to put the godly phrase on the side of the coin was made under a Republican administration, and not reversed until 2007 — with the support of Democrats in Congress.”

  http://rawstory.com/2009/11/fox-news-fact-checks-sarah-palins-dollar-conspiracy/

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUWF0ib-IC4

• 

  Arch_Druid on November 13 at 9:20 a.m.

  Palin should be asked WHICH God do we trust; God or Mammon? Since mammon is the object that she is making the biggest fuss over.

« Back to A Matter Of Opinion