sarahiki

If I were going to talk about her judgement in these matters, which I try not to since I really do try not to judge other mothers, I would wonder why: 1. she drags a 4-month old baby out late at night to be pranced around after speeches 2. she enters a race like this, knowing her teen daughter is pregnant, and knowing she will reveal this to the media, and knowing the embarrassment her daughter will face as a result 3. talks about her baby's health condition and how she will advocate for children's health, but when the issue of children's health is then taken up by her opponents, she accuses them of cheaply taking advantage of her children 4. after exposing her family to national audiences, issuing press releases about them, and talking about their personal issues in her speeches, she asks the media to respect their privacy, then cries foul when that wish is not 100% complied with. She is the one exposing her children to all of this, not the media, not anyone else. And as a mother, I can't help but to wonder how on earth she could do this to them, especially to the pregnant daughter and the little baby.

this is so totally Jetsons, it's hard to believe it's in the planning stages (in Sweden, anyway): http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6054385.html

Keep in mind that there are a number of good private schools that aren't that far from GV; near the medical center, for example, or in Montrose. If you send your child to a private school that is reasonably close to where you live you'll find other kids from your neighborhood are also attending there. You may not have to move. There are also HISD magnets, and while many of the good magnets are clear across town from GV, there are a few good ones closer to the SE part of the city. If you have enough time to do your research, you'll probably find some good options.

Of course you don't HAVE to vote, and you don't have to like either candidate, so that's fine. But I always wonder, when someone says that's why they're not voting: isn't there SOME minute difference, something that one of them promises to do or not do, that affects you? Whether it's taxes or healthcare or women's rights or gay rights or foreign policy, these guys are miles apart on most issues. If any one of the issues matters to you, there probably is a candidate who would therefore be a better choice. I guess I mean to ask, not tell. Isn't there a candidate who is a better choice for you, because of at least one issue? I'm genuinely curious, because I am so baffled by undecided voters, and non-voters.

I hope this means some money will be available to improve those schools. Blackshear looks like it belongs in Afghanistan. It's shameful.

No prob. I'm a little prickly about being termed an elitist, that's all. I'm well-educated but poor, and I always feel like that offers me pretty good immunity from elitist labels.

I can only speak for myself, but I certainly wasn't deriding public education. I was pointing out that it is, essentially, a socialist institution. We all pay for it, everyone is entitled to it. I never said it was bad. I didn't pick up on derision in anyone else's post, either, though I may have missed something.

I don't follow... why is it snobby to talk about public education? Isn't it just the opposite?

How do you feel about public education? Is that a "failed concept of socialism?" Let me be clear... I'm not advocating for Socialism, nor do I want to change your mind about who you're voting for. (Okay, I would like to, but I realize I can't!). But I find it strange how so many people are crying "Socialist!" about Obama. We accept so many examples of socialized institutions in this country without thinking, but still have this Cold War era notion of commies at the doorway, regarding other forms of government intervention. I think there's a lot of inconsistency, and that's what I'm trying to point out.

Do you not see the logical problem in setting up "patriot" and "socialist" as opposites? Even if Obama were a Socialist, which he is not (and really, you are smart enough to know the facts on that, aren't you?), he could certainly be a patriotic Socialist. I know a few of those.

This is relevant to our earlier discussion of the debate: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...09/1523335.aspx quote: From NBC's Michael Levine
I tried to get in touch via Facebook with Oliver Clark, the man who McCain said probably didn't know what Fannie Mae was before the financial crisis (at Tuesday's debate). Apparently others have done the same. He just posted the following on his Facebook page: How did I feel about Sen. McCain stating

I heard a report on this today on NPR (while I was sipping chardonnay and munching arugula). They said that retailers placed their orders for the season before the economy went so far south, so they will be burdened with more stuff than people are ready to buy. The reporter's take on it was that they would, indeed, have to slash prices to move things.

I am genuinely glad to hear that they had already shaken hands. I missed that. The exchange makes more sense now.

OK, I'll buy that. If he actually had some info that they admittedly hadn't heard of Fannie and Freddie. And I probably do overestimate the public's knowledge and intelligence. I just know that I raised my eyebrow when he said that, and thought, "I certainly HAD heard of them, Mr. Smartypants." So it didn't play well with me.

Thanks for posting that... OMG, as I was watching, I thought, "No way... did McCain just refuse to shake Obama's hand? And pawn him off on Cindy, instead?" I thought I have seen it wrong. My husband's response was to note that it was typical behavior of McCain towards Cindy that he makes her shake the hand of the guy he won't. (posts edited because they are being duplicated somehow)

But isn't there a difference between speaking intelligently, and talking down to someone? I couldn't believe it when McCain said to the audience, "Most of you probably hadn't heard of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac before all this happened." Pat, pat. That's obviously talking down to someone. But to speak intelligently, and assume people understand you, is different. Yes, you'll probably lose most of them, so keep it brief...

Yeah, I totally lost that bet! I guess he IS dumber than I thought.

You're on. If he brings up that $18 billion again he's dumber than I think. That flew like a lead balloon (is that the right metaphor?) in the last debate.

I wasn't being "partisan"; nor was I being a wacko as your emoticon suggests. The discussion was about Sarah Palin and the likelihood she would succeed McCain. I'm offering the actuarial take on it. That's what these folks are paid to do. The actuarial odds on Obama are open to discussion as well, but that's not what we were talking about. (edited for typo)

I heard that the actuarial odds that McCain will die in office are 1 in 5.

Okay, seriously, I am ready for a real answer to this question: what are her qualifications? And don't tell me being governor of Alaska makes one qualified to be in line for President. It would, perhaps, if she had been at it longer. So aside from that, anything? The only other thing I've heard is that a certain faction love her because she's never aborted a fetus. Well, good on her, but that's true of lots of people, including many other women. Heck, I've never aborted a fetus, but McCain didn't knock on my door. I know I'm being obnoxious, but the question is serious. For all those many people who just love her, why?

No, I wouldn't have voted for him. I don't agree with his policies and positions. I used to respect him, though. I'm not offended that he picked someone unqualified (I just think it shows poor judgment). I'm offended that he seems to have thought I might decide to vote for him just because he put a woman on the ticket. I'm offended that he thinks I'm that stupid.

I went out for drinks last night with seven other moms and believe me, none of us are "on board." You are far from alone in being offended, Crunch. I'm waiting for McCain to call me up with a personal apology. I feel like I might be waiting a while.

I thought that was an interesting response. I am all for gay marriage (why not... who am I to decide who should or shouldn't be married, after all), but I actually didn't mind his answer. I thought he was drawing a clear and useful distinction between civil matters and religious matters. For all civil purposes, he would allow gay couples the same rights as straight couples. But he is saying it's not up to government to define "marriage." If they're willing to back that up, and not STAND IN THE WAY of a church that marries gays, then fine. And I think they can do that... just keep saying it's not up to government to decide who is married (in the eyes of god). If you are in a long-term committed relationship, you deserve the same priveleges. Seems fair. Am I wrong?

No, same goes for McCain. I'm just personally interested in whether or not Obama could actually win Texas, which is always seen as impossible. He hasn't written any state off, which I like. So that was my thinking. But sure, McCain could come and show the love and probably win some additional support, too.