blueollie

Back home June 2008

Workout notes Nothing today; just drove home.

Elections

I am listening to Meet the Press on podcast. Harold Ickes is a two faced lying hypocritical worm.
Nevertheless here is a nice diary that shows how the Clinton campaign continues to lie about the popular vote totals and what they really are.

Now about the general election polling numbers: remember that Bill Clinton was only polling at 24% at this time in 1992, behind Perot and the elder Bush. And, Obama is doing just fine.

Clinton won Puerto Rico easily. Now the campaign is popping off:

Ken Vogel reports that the Clinton campaign is using the results to openly argue that Barack Obama has a problem with Hispanic voters — an idea Clinton backers have previously mentioned only behind the scenes.

“It was a 100 percent Hispanic primary and it shows that he has a problem with the Latino community,” Terry McAuliffe, campaign chairman for Hillary Clinton, told a handful of reporters after polls closed Sunday. “He cannot close in this key core constituency,” McAuliffe added.

Voters in Puerto Rico are in some ways different from Hispanics living stateside, both because there’s a long tradition of racial mixing and because elections here tend to center around the debate over whether the island should remain a commonwealth or become a state or an independent nation. They also don’t vote in November.

Clinton has fared better than Obama with Hispanic voters in previous primaries. And her campaign has argued to superdelegates that she’d do better than Obama against presumptive GOP nominee in key states with large Hispanic populations.

CNN exit polls in Puerto Rico found a surprisingly high 31 percent of voters admitted the race of the candidates was important in their decision. Of those, 63 percent voted for Clinton and 37 percent for Obama.

“It helps make the case that we would not have to expend resources to win a natural Democratic constituency,” said Puerto Rico Senate president Kenneth D. McClintock, a Clinton co-chair and superdelegate. If Obama is the nominee, McClintock asserted that in order to win the Hispanic vote, Democrats “would have to divert resources that we would otherwise spend on other campaigns.”

But McAuliffe’s assertion Sunday that Obama has a Hispanic “problem” was more direct than any the campaign has made publicly to date.

Ok, let’s turn this around: Clinton has a difficult time with Black voters and educated voters.

Obama is widely being viewed as having an insurmountable lead though.

But as I reported, BHO resigned from his church. On one hand, that is too bad for both parties. On the other hand, I sort of hope that he doesn’t go to church at all and sticks with us. Friendly Atheist talks about this some.

Other topics:
Obviously, Intelligent Design is not science. Well, one can say it isn’t good religion either, unless the Designer is one cruel bastard. :)

What leads some away from theism? For me the journey started when I actually read the Bible. Evidently the Bible lead others away as well.

Yes, I know, I’ve read the higher criticism: e. g., those in the Hebrew Bible (aka “Old Testament” ) didn’t have the concept of an omnipotent deity, but still, what I read both horrified and disgusted me; I ended up having contempt for those who wrote it. I saw them as ignorant “savages” and I had no desire to assume their superstitions. Still, this drove me to the “scholarly/higher criticism” folks; agnosticism came later.

Science: what makes us human?

This is not an easy question to answer in a “crisp” fashion as the article I linked to demonstrates. I think that the problem is that I think that biological species form “fuzzy” sets rather than the traditional “crisp” ones. That is, there is no “in/out” specification that applies; rather than there are “degrees of membership” standards that apply.

Examples: a chimp might have a membership number of, say, .005, Dick Cheney maybe .90, a typical Republican .95 and an Obama backing Democrat .9999. :)

Ok, ok, I was just kidding about the last three examples. Ok, the last two examples. :)

Seriously, say, the “Lucy” homonoid was, what, .7? (70%) .8? .9? Neanderthals maybe .95?

About these ads

June 2, 2008 - Posted by | creationism, education, hillary clinton, obama, politics/social, religion

1 Comment »

  1. Don’t hold back, tell us how you really feel about Harold Ickes. ;-)

    Comment by Rose | June 2, 2008 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 658 other followers

%d bloggers like this: