text:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|Look up PR or .pr in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
PR, P.R., Pr, pr, or Pr. may refer to:
Social science[edit]
- Public relations, a field concerned with maintaining public image
- Paraná (state), Brazil (ISO 3166-2:BR)
- Parma, Italy (ISO 3166-2:IT)
- Port Richmond (disambiguation), various locations
- PR postcode area, for Preston, Lancashire, United Kingdom
- Puerto Rico, ISO 3166 code PR
- Party of Regions, a Ukrainian political party
- Payroll, the sum of all financial records of salaries for an employee
- The Princeton Review, an education company
- Pakistan Railways, reporting mark PR, is a national state-owned rail transport service of Pakistan
- Philippine Airlines, IATA airline designation PR
- Pastor, an ordained leader of a Christian congregation
- Presbyter, or priest, may also be abbreviated as Prb or Pbr
- Permanens Rector, or Permanent Rector, a person who holds the office of presiding over an ecclesiastical institution
- Pater, or priest, Latin for father
- Adobe Premiere Pro, software which uses "Pr" as its icon abbreviation
- Pagerank, a Google technology
- Performance Rating, a computing term by AMD
- Perpendicular recording, hard disk technology
- Project Reality, a modification of the games Battlefield 2 and ArmA 2
- PR (complexity), a complexity class
- Pull Request, a type of message sent between DVCS users
- pr, Unix command to paginate or columnate files for printing
- Republican Party of Albania, a political party in Albania
- Pakatan Rakyat, a political coalition in Malaysia composed of three parties: Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party, Parti Keadilan Rakyat and Democratic Action Party
- Proportional representation, a property of some voting systems
- Party of the Republic, a right-wing party in Brazil.
- Parachute rigger, a former rank of the U.S. Navy
- Pershing Rifles
- Pathogenesis-related, a type of plant proteins produced during a pathogen infection
- Peripheral resistance, in blood circulation, the resistance of the peripheral vasculature in systemic circulation
- Per rectum, in medicine
- Photorefractive effect
- Prandtl number, in physics and engineering
- Praseodymium, chemical element number 59 (abbreviated "Pr")
- Probability of release, a term used in neuroscience
- Progesterone receptor, a protein
- Propyl radicals, in organic chemistry
- Pr(E), also P(E), denotes the probability of a particular event E.
- Positive-real, in mathematics the defining property of positive-real functions
- PR (complexity), a complexity class
- Precisely Right, a synchronized skating team
- Punt returner, a position in American football
- Protected Ranking, a tennis term used in tournaments – see Glossary of tennis
- Personal Record, the fastest time an individual has achieved in a given running distance.
- Personal Record, a weight record in Powerlifting
- Power Rangers, referred to as PR by fans
- P.R. (TV series), a Canadian television sitcom
- Pretty Rhythm, A Japanese Animation Series
- Parks and Recreation, an American comedy series.
Other uses[edit]
- Peer review
- Permanent residency, in immigration
- Permanent revolution, in politics
- Pizza Roll, a snack food
- Poste restante, a service where the post office holds mail until the recipient calls for it
- Press release
- Protestant Reformation
- Partisan Review, a defunct political and literary journal
- Pr., Estonian abbreviation for Proua, or Mrs..
- Person reporting, used in voice procedure (police radio codes)
See also[edit]
|This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title PR.
If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.


text:
Palin: The Alienator
Over at The American Catholic, Eric Brown, Tim Shipe, and Joe Hargrave have sparked heated disagreement from readers and fellow contributors by their strong criticisms of Sarah Palin. I have to side with Eric, Tim, and Joe in this debate. I know why social conservatives and others celebrate her as a political leader and a media celebrity. Her supporters see her as the real deal, a politician who has gone rogue by being a rarity in politics: a trustworthy leader on the issues she talks about. They view her as one who's lived her conservative values, whose principles have guided her real-life moral choices. Palin isn't seen as just another establishment politician who talks today about effectively winning wars or outlawing abortion only to forget about those matters tomorrow. She is the rogue they can believe in. So they say.
Palin's well-documented history of making blatantly false statements leaves me doubtful about how trustworthy she is on the issues she represents, but, even assuming that she is truly a believer and will do everything in her power to promote those issues, she isn't the leader her supporters have been waiting for. Indeed, she's the opposite of the kind of figure her supporters need to further their goals in the public sphere. Palin excites her base, but she very deliberately alienates just about everyone else by the way she depicts her political opponents, the way she divides America into real and less real, the way she fashions herself as an adversary of the elites and the media and others. The political narrative she has crafted marks her as the rogue, the antagonist, the alienator.
She exemplifies what E.D. Kain calls the politics of pettiness. However right she is on the issues that matter to her supporters, she won't persuade those of differing or undecided views that her views are the right ones because she doesn't try to persuade them. Her way of engaging others isn't even intended to open their hearts and minds; it rather pushes them away and breaks down the consensus that is needed among the general public to maintain political achievements. Those who support her for the values, principles, or issues she represents would be better served by a leader who seeks to advance those values, principles, or issues in the public sphere by convincing others that they warrant wide acceptance and advancement.
February 12, 2010 10:21 am
And Obama is different how? Besides spouting platitues of "working together" his actions have done far more dividing than Palin could dream of.
Not that I don't have some problems with her, but this fixation on her when the exact same criticisms could be turned on Obama, it just gets old after a while.
Obama simply masks his rehtoric better than her. Otherwise they are the same when it comes to "divisiveness."
February 12, 2010 11:00 am
Obama is not divisive.
Republicans hate him reflexively, and have filibustered or threatened to filibuster every piece of legislation he has supported, and the Tea Partiers routinely call him a socialist and a baby-killer. . . but that's not the same as Obama himself being divisive.
Did Bush ever sit down with the democratic minority to sort out their differences? Is Obama pushing through a "liberal agenda" without regard to republican objections?
Obama is not divisive. Republicans are intractable.
And Palin, who looks like the leader contender for the GOP nomination in 2012, will be a disaster as president.
Cathy permalinkFebruary 12, 2010 11:21 am
The pettiness comes from her advesaries that watch and report her every move. It does not come from her.
February 12, 2010 11:30 am
"The knee-jerk back-and-forth that assumes that if Palin is not to be trusted, then, Obama is is deeply misguided, as I see it."
While I'll admit that there is some knee-jerk-ness to my response, I've never understood the fixation from either right or left about her. I just find it frustrating that we fixate on what is a celebrity when
1. The same accusations can be leveled at Obama
2. He's actually in charge.
"However, Obama at least at times makes an effort to engage his political opponents in honest debate."
Speaking as someone who he's "engage in open debate" he routinely calls for open debate and then slams his opponents for not caving in to his position.
The bankers are evil.
The health insurance companies are evil.
The Republicans are evil.
Wall St. is evil.
The fact that Obama has a more appealing gloss doesn't invalidate the criticisms. The only difference between him and Palin is that the targets are different.
When I see a post on VN that points this out THEN I might take some of the Palin criticism seriously on this site. But as long as "Obama casts himself as the protagonist and has made much more effort to bring people to his side than Palin has" is the attitude then I'm not really inclined to give credibility to the perception.
February 12, 2010 11:44 am
Obama isn't the issue. I think we should be able to discuss Sarah Palin — who for some reason is considered by many Americans to be worthy of the presidency — without having to discuss her relative to Obama.
Everytime I make a comment about Sarah Palin to a conservative, the reply is "Well Obama…" and I'll finish their sentence "can't make it through the drive-thru without a teleprompter." I'm a Democrat less than excited about what our president has done in pushing for the common good; it could been a lot better. But…what does this has to do with Sarah Palin? Nothing.
Palin really is intellectually lazy. And I'm just amazed that people virtually worship her in the cultish way people were said to have worshipped Obama (I think it's true on both sides). Either way, I think she is, as Tim asserted, an opportuntist who is riding on the political strength of the tea party movement — a movement I think she historically probably knows nothing about.
February 12, 2010 11:46 am
It is perfectly legitimate, and in fact inevitable, that one's policy positions should "divide" one from one's political opposition. That's what makes for a horse race, as they say.
The difference between Obama and Palin is that Obama is not on tv ridiculing his opposition, calling them names, and slandering their backgrounds, and lying about their agendas. Palin has done, and continues to do, all of those things.
But she's only in it for the money, folks, as will become increasingly evident with time. Her idea of "service" is to walk out on her constituents and hit the lecture and book tour circuits to rake in the big bucks. She has no credibility as a committed politian. The governor of Alaska has fewer constituents than the mayor of Columbus, Ohio. Palin is in way over her head as a national figure.
February 12, 2010 11:52 am
I wonder if Mr. Gormley can cite for us even one instance in which Obama has been documented using the word "evil" to characterize any of the entities on the list he produces for our edification.
Methinks ye listen to El Rushbo too much.
Obama is, in fact, currently in trouble with his own base for stating publicly that certain Wall Street figures deserve their huge salaries and are good guys.
Which is it?
February 12, 2010 11:53 am
"The bankers are evil.
The health insurance companies are evil.
The Republicans are evil.
Wall St. is evil."
Obama has said this? Used the word "evil?" Because his opponents have. They literally think he is a baby-killing socialist.
As for Plain not being "in power". . . no republican is. They re the minority party, and the only activity on the republican front is in the form of the Tea Party Movement, of which Palin is the most prominent spokesperson.
Unofficial, yes, but all republican power is unofficial these days.
February 12, 2010 11:56 am
Republicans have declared Obama's presidency to be a disaster, and started doing so weeks into his term.
THIS is divisive, and not anything Obama is himself responsible for.
How can he respond to people who have been calling for his impeachemnt since the day he was nominated?
February 12, 2010 11:57 am
Palin is in decline, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll:
There is a growing sense that the former Alaska governor is not qualified to serve as president, with more than seven in 10 Americans now saying she is unqualified, up from 60 percent in a November survey. Even among Republicans, a majority now say Palin lacks the qualifications necessary for the White House.
Palin has lost ground among conservative Republicans, who would be crucial to her hopes if she seeks the party's presidential nomination in 2012. Forty-five percent of conservatives now consider her as qualified for the presidency, down sharply from 66 percent who said so last fall.
Among all Republicans polled, 37 percent now hold a "strongly favorable" opinion of Palin, about half the level recorded when she burst onto the national stage in 2008 as Sen. John McCain's running mate.
Among Democrats and independents, assessments of Palin also have eroded. Six percent of Democrats now consider her qualified for the presidency, a drop from 22 percent in November; the percentage of independents who think she is qualified fell to 29 percent from 37 percent.
Also, everybody hates the government.
February 12, 2010 11:58 am
The Republicans are evil.
I have never heard Obama say Republicans are evil. It might help to make political debate less rancorous if people refrained from making stuff up.
February 12, 2010 12:13 pm
Obama and Palin are equally divisive. Largely it is the style which does it.
Obama speaks in a professorial manner which strikes some as pompous and arrogant; they associate it with the kind of thin-telligent folk who emerge from grad schools with loads of untested theories about how the world works but no practical experience, and proceed to muck up most of the real-world projects to which they contribute before ducking back into academia where they can haughtily opine about the world while keeping their notions safe from the challenge of reality.
Palin speaks in a regional and rural accent and rhythm and with a demeanor which urbane and elite folk associate with gossipy small-town hairdressers. Admittedly most gossipy small-town hairdressers aren't as accomplished or as pretty, but the impression comes through with all its associations: Here is a person whose deepest thoughts on the issues of the day are to dismiss the notion of thinking deeply as a waste of time by silly people who think too much. Here also is a person who, like a stereotypical small-town hairdresser, probably tells stories which are selected and exaggerated for storytelling effect rather than for relevance and accuracy. Also, she is apparently happy with a life of lowbrow diversions; her ambition takes the form of opportunism but has nothing of the seriousness or persistence of a quest. Had the opportunity for VP not arisen, Palin would have been equally contented with another moose-hunting trophy and a night out with the First Dude at the nearest Ryan's family steak house.
Now for high office, one wants the right kind of person with the right kinds of ideas and the right tools for the job.
The anti-Obama half of the country reacts to Obama with horror because an insecure pencil-necked geek who lacks the maturity to know what he doesn't know and is haughty about knowing a bunch of things that aren't even true is a horrifying person to have in the Oval Office. Sure, he has some of the right tools for the job: a non-regionally-specific speaking voice, his political and cultural connections, and his skin color are all great tools in his toolset, and helped him clinch the nomination over Hillary. But he's the wrong kind of person with the wrong type of ideas, so his toolset doesn't overcome the horror some people feel at his unfitness for the office he holds.
By the way, these folk who react with horror to Poindexter in the White House often regard Palin as the right sort of person to hold office: Not insecure, not academically isolated from reality, not holding Average Joe's American life as beneath her. Her existence would not be rendered meaningless if she lost an election. (She would not, for example, gain fifty pounds, grow a beard, show up in a hot tub on SNL, and spend the next decade trying to justify her existence hysterically tilting at windmills to save the world from imaginary dragons.)
But that isn't how the kind of people who like Obama see things.
The type of person who's okay with Obama in the White House reacts to Palin with horror because they think she lacks all three items that make a good candidate: To them, she's the wrong kind of person, with no ideas at all, and with a totally wrong toolset.
These folk see a person who practices her religion apparently sincerely, without either of the traditional expressions of sophistication (dissent or lukewarmness) which cultural elites use to signal their intellectual independence from religion. That absent signal tells the kind of folk that like Obama that this woman is not one of them. (No dissent? No lukewarmness? A person like that can't possibly have a brain!) So she's the wrong sort of person.
They also see her as having the wrong sort of ideas…no, wait, that's not quite right. Truer to say that she may claim to have "ideas," but what she calls "ideas" don't count in their book: Only a moron could hold those sort of free-market, America-is-basically-good, my-family-makes-me-happy, drill-now-drill-here notions. Anyone whose synapses fire regularly would be more angsty, less content.
And the toolset might be perfect for a soccer mom in flyover country, but utterly wrong for impressing diplomats and heads of state. Pretty doesn't work if it's the wrong sort of pretty. She looks neither ethnic nor European. She's small-town hot, but not striking in a sophisticated way.
I think in the end neither figure, no matter how much or little they express their contempt for the other half of the country, can help being divisive. Their styles cut along the existing cultural divisions between in the American people.
Palin and Obama could verbalize no "red meat" at all, and it wouldn't matter. We'd all be at one another's throats over how appropriate or inappropriate they each were for public office, according to the type of people we are.
In essence, the American public is a lot like two cars driving down the highway with almost-identical window stickers: The one has the cartoon character Calvin urinating on a Chevrolet logo; the other has Calvin urinating on a Ford logo.
The CEO's of Ford and Chevrolet could be best buddies, but it wouldn't matter: The owners of these two cars have expressed their brand loyalty, and now they're reflexively expressing their brand-oriented identity by pissing at each other.
February 12, 2010 12:18 pm
Palin is going to be the GOP presidential nominee in 2012. I can't believe that no one else seems to see this.
Conservatives claim to be perplexed that liberals are watching her so closely. . . but the strongest thing in her favor, as far as conservatives are concerned, is that she "riles up libs!"
I would have thought that after the disaster of the Bush presidency, conservatives would put more thought into their political representatives, but apparently that is not the case.
February 12, 2010 12:28 pm
LOL. Looks like I'm not the only knee-jerk reaction here.
"The difference between Obama and Palin is that Obama is not on tv ridiculing his opposition"
Oh yeah. Like the Supreme Court dig totally didn't happen in the SOTU speech. Or blaming his predecessor for the past year for everything evil in the world. Or blaming the Republicans for stalling his agenda AFTER calling for bipartisanship (it's only the opposition's fault that there is a problem. If everyone only agreed with me everything would be cool).
My point is this gentlemen. Obama's calls for bipartisanship are simply duplicitous. His idea of bipartisanship is for the opposition to shut up. Palin makes it clear that her targets are to be defeated. Obama plays the bipartisanship card but simply uses the same heated rethoric.
The inability of the posters here to see that only makes me take criticism of Palin with much salt. The inability to see that Obama is just as divisive with a better gloss make me rather skeptical about the qualifications of the author of the article to judge such.
February 12, 2010 12:46 pm
"My point is this gentlemen. Obama's calls for bipartisanship are simply duplicitous. "
This is simply incorrect. Look at how the current GOP is using the filibuster in the Senate, compared to any previous term. They have made it impossible for Obama to do anything without a supermajority.
This is not a good faith attempt to get a minority viewpoint heard, it is obstructionism, pure and simple.
Obviously, you think I am lying about this, but there is an easy test: find me a previous Senate minority, of any party, that used the filibuster as much as this present one.
Do that, and I will concede that the lack of bipartisanship is Obama's fault.
February 12, 2010 12:51 pm
Thank you R.C. My point stated with more articulation.
February 12, 2010 1:14 pm
Most of what you said was nonsense. But I will object only to this:
I'm "lukewarm"?
Because I don't read Reveleations literally, don't insist that America be caled a "Christian Nation", and recognize that Christianity has a long philosophical and disputative tradition?
Is the only mark of "sincerity" the singleminded and hysterical application of faith to politics?
Isn't it possible that those who dislike Palin for her overt religiosity do so because it strikes them as shallow "Elmer Gantryism"? Is Plain's "sincerity" simply beyond question? While liberal faith is always under suspicion?
Palin represents. . . as did Bush before her. . . a kind of Christianity that sets my teeth on edge. Smug, respectable, emotional, anti-intellectual. The fact that the Catholci Church seems to mix so readily with this kind of christianity, and even seems to aspire to be more like it, strikes me as a real danger.
February 12, 2010 1:16 pm
"Sure, he has some of the right tools for the job: a non-regionally-specific speaking voice, his political and cultural connections, and his skin color are all great tools in his toolset, and helped him clinch the nomination over Hillary. But he's the wrong kind of person with the wrong type of ideas, so his toolset doesn't overcome the horror some people feel at his unfitness for the office he holds."
Just to be clear: is this an opinoon you yourself hold, or are you mere;y articulating the view of the "average anti-Obama person?"
February 12, 2010 1:33 pm
Gormley is closest to the mark in these comments/posts. Strassel has a great article running realclearpolitics today connecting the Alinsky-ite dots from Obama's comments about Rep. Ryan at the Republican retreat to the ongoing personalize/smear that is not emanating from the President's party hit"men."
I have found little honest in what Obama claims and proposes…other than his specific actions. Obama's actions include: immediately ending the Mexico City Policy and then using our tax dollars to fund abortion (which is the killing of children) in foreign lands. Talk about an act of _ _ _.
Does Obama engage in honest debate to convince America…no. Obama engages in subterfuge and manipulation.
At the Republican Retreat Obama commented that the Rep's had made his (Obama's) health care bill look like a "Bolshevik Plot." When Obama is on record from before his Pres. bid advocating a step by step process to reach a single-payer system. Every country in the world with national health care is said to have "socialized medicine."
Is Obama a "baby killer?" He does want the nation's tax dollars and borrowed funds as well to make sure Bolshevized health care plans do cover abortions…He is so flippant as to say that knowing the start of life is above his pay grade. Obama certainly makes accessible and inexpensive (monetarily) the destruction of unborn children…meanwhile he goes on to say that "nobody really ever wants to get an abortion." Subterfuge!
As regards Palin…I tried to watch her interview with Chris Wallace last week. Where Obama's trickery angers me, Palin's wording and pauses are painful to hear. I tried to listen to Palin, but it was too painful. (I am not addressing the appropriateness of her pursuits.)
February 12, 2010 1:40 pm
"Obama certainly makes accessible and inexpensive (monetarily) the destruction of unborn children…meanwhile he goes on to say that "nobody really ever wants to get an abortion." Subterfuge!"
How is this "subterfuge?" Is there no such thing as a necessary evil? Do you honestly think that some women have abortions for fun?
But inanyevent. . . you do think Obama is a baby-killing socialist, right? Does he hate America, too?
February 12, 2010 2:00 pm
Last post on this. Just wanted to say that I actually agree with the post as far as some criticisms. I only wanted to raise two points.
1. If these claims about Palin make her unfit for the office then Obama is as well for the same reasons.
2. I think you are undermining your own position when you argue against Palin in this fashion. Disagree with her political stances, fine. But when you post an argument line like this I don't think you get anywhere. Most politicians (including the ones in charge) suffer from these problems. By this same criteria most (if not all) of our elected officials shouldn't be there. Palin isn't special in that regard.
Kurt permalinkFebruary 12, 2010 2:18 pm
It is people like Scott that have convinced me that the President was right in reversing the Mexico City Policy.
February 12, 2010 2:22 pm
Oh yeah. Like the Supreme Court dig totally didn't happen in the SOTU speech.
Obama didn't ridicule the Supreme Court for their decision. He strongly disagreed with it. And it was a 5-4 decision, by the way, with very strong dissents. Were the dissenters ridiculing the Court they serve on?
Or blaming his predecessor for the past year for everything evil in the world.
I believe you are referring to this line in the State of the Union Address:
One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt.
One can hardly call that blaming George Bush for "everything evil in the world." It is a simple statement of fact. You may be upset that it's true, but that doesn't make it any the less true.
February 12, 2010 2:57 pm
I'm going to let this be my only comment on this thread:
It's for [those] who say that Obama "blames the banks" for everything.
February 12, 2010 3:04 pm
Still no Obama quotes using the word "evil," Mr. Gormley? No Obama quotes substantiating anything you've said about him, actually are there?
Obama has, in fact, done everything in his power NOT to be divisive. This does not mean that he is going to become a tight-fisted, conservative, nativist, tea-bagger. He's a left-of-center liberal. He believes in a major role for government in solving domestic problems. He is not, however, a rabble-rouser.
But, hey–whatever floats your boat, Mr. Gormley.
Frank permalinkFebruary 12, 2010 3:14 pm
And Palin, who looks like the leader contender for the GOP nomination in 2012 . . .
Palin as "leading contender" is a media creation. She quit halfway through her first term as governor to strike while the iron was hot—rake in as much cash as possible before trotting off to the political graveyard. Her possible candidacy is nothing more than catnip to sell her book and line up $100K a pop speeches.
February 12, 2010 3:55 pm
If these claims about Palin make her unfit for the office then Obama is as well for the same reasons.
Which may be the reason why she won't get far in a presidential run. Palin and Obama have roughly the same amount of experience, and Obama's inexperience is glowing brightly for all to see right now. There are enough parallels between the two, and the bad taste that many are now trying to dilute with tea might still be too strong for a good number of center/right leaning voters when 2012 comes into focus – when Palin is front and center yelling "change." Is it deja-vu all over again? Ironically, Obama's failure may be Palin's undoing.
February 12, 2010 4:08 pm
"Obama's failure. . .
What "failure"?
You're not one of the 39% of republicans who think he should be impeached, are you?
Is his presidency rally in tatters? Is his failure. . . after a bit more than a year. . . so plain that any unbiased observer can see it?
February 12, 2010 5:46 pm
If you need to ask "what failure?" then what can I say? So far he's been a dismal failure and is daily proving himself more and more incompetent. Palin would likely be about the same in my estimation, which is my point.
If you really think that Obama will win in a landslide against ANYONE at this point, then you're obviously a democrat shill and are delusional.
February 12, 2010 6:15 pm
"If you need to ask "what failure?" then what can I say? "
You need to say one thing that he has failed at. He has not yet gotten the most massive and ambitious piece of social legislation in fifty years passed.
Other than that, what has he "failed" at.
Seriously. Republicans repeat this over and over, but I t is simply too early to call his presidency a failure.
February 12, 2010 6:19 pm
And the claim that Palin would be as bad is ridiculous: she would be MUCH worse. She has ALREADY come out in favor of attacking Iran:
A Palin presidency would be an unmitigated disaster.
Cathy permalinkFebruary 12, 2010 7:46 pm
Mr. Iafrate:
If you would like to see the end of the USA, please leave and live in another country.
Rodak permalinkFebruary 12, 2010 8:00 pm
What's the beef, Cathy? He's no different there than the ex-First Dude of Alaska, or the current governor of Texas.
February 12, 2010 8:07 pm
Replying (at length! don't say I'm shortchanging you!) to Phosphorious:
1. Phosphorious, I know absolutely nothing about you; even your online moniker isn't particularly revealing. I don't know whether your approach to whichever religious faith you practice is lukewarm or dissenting.
All that I have yet gathered about you personally is that you must have voted for Obama and still support him politically. I draw that conclusion solely on the observation that you otherwise would not have taken my generalizations about Obama supporters as directed at you personally.
They were, however, generalizations. I anticipate that they are statistically valid as a characterization of what tends to distinguish Palin-lovers from Obama-lovers. But you could easily be a statistical outlier within your group, without invalidating the generalization.
2. In retrospect "lukewarm" and "dissenting" were imperfect word-choices.
To more fully convey what I had in mind, let me flesh out my generalization about Obama supporters as follows:
(a.) Some of them will belong to religious groups in which the demands of orthodox belief are strongly supernaturalist and the demands of orthodox morality are strongly traditionalist and countercultural, especially with regard to sexual mores. I put the Catholic church squarely in this category, along with a lot of the more fundamentalist-leaning evangelical groups.
(b.) Some of them will belong to religious groups in which orthodoxy is less supernaturalist and traditional. Unitarian Universalists are perhaps the exemplars of this category.
(c.) Some will eschew religious belief and practice altogether.
I expect that relative to Palin supporters, Obama supporters tend to belong more to categories (b.) and (c.).
I also expect that relative to Palin supporters, Obama supporters in category (a.) will tend more often to dissent from, or be dismissive of the importance of, that group's orthodoxy.
Returning to my original observations, an Obama-supporting Catholic who learns that Palin's church is dispensationalist, preaches against abortion, believes that demonic oppression and possession is not always mere mental illness, and practices exorcism and speaking in tongues will then look at Palin to determine what her individual attitudes about these things are.
If Palin were to say, "Well, I go to church with people who believe those things, but I myself have trouble believing some of that. Still, I feel very attached to my church and the friends and family who are also members, and for that reason I continue to attend," …then an Obama supporter would likely think, "Ah. She's smarter and more sophisticated than the other rubes in her town. Perhaps she's not so bad."
If Palin simply said, "Yes, I believe what my church teaches; and those beliefs are very much part of how Jesus has done wonderful things in my life," …then an Obama supporter would likely think, "Oh. My. God. She's actually that backward. Put a gag on her before the rest of the world thinks we Americans are all that way."
3. You ask, "Is the only mark of 'sincerity' the singleminded and hysterical application of faith to politics?"
No. In fact I find it difficult to see how you got that assumption out of what I wrote. There's some subtext you're bringing to the party; some colored lenses through which you're viewing my intended meaning.
You continue, "Isn't it possible that those who dislike Palin for her overt religiosity do so because it strikes them as shallow Elmer Gantryism?" It's possible for people to hold that view, if they're culturally distant from middle America's religiosity and thus unfamiliar with its expression. People with broader experience would see no reason to draw comparisons between Sinclair Lewis's false prophet and Palin's expressions of faith, which are perfectly congruent with her culture and pretty mild by its standards.
4. Re: "Is Plain's sincerity simply beyond question?" Not at all. But there isn't currently any reason for suspicion: There's nothing about Palin's religious life, so far as we yet know, which runs counter-to-type.
Raising questions without evidence of insincerity thus raises more questions about the questioner than about Palin: What makes him suspicious of the sincerity of people who are comfortable and contented in their church membership? Is it because he hasn't had that kind of experience himself?
Re: "While liberal faith is always under suspicion?" I'm not sure I know what you mean by "liberal faith"; do you mean the faith of political liberals, or the faith of persons whose theology is unorthodox, or…?
I said nothing about suspicion in the sense of my policing orthodoxy. I said rather that Obama supporters, when they belong to churches where orthodoxy requires a high level of rigor, tend (more often than Palin supporters) to be amongst those who dissent from or are blasé about whether integrity requires them to join a different communion more congruent with their beliefs and practices. That's a cultural observation.
5. Re: "Palin represents. . . as did Bush before her. . . a kind of Christianity that sets my teeth on edge. Smug, respectable, emotional, anti-intellectual."
How odd a reaction! Nothing about it strikes me as smug, but perhaps I'm more familiar with how middle America talks about its faith…or how it talks, in general. Part of the point of my earlier post is that the style of each person (Palin and Obama) is of a type that lends itself to misunderstanding and mistrust in certain segments of the electorate.
That Palin should be thought to sound smug because she finds nothing annoying or contemptible about her church is like calling a husband smug because he found nothing annoying or contemptible about his wife. But when she speaks in front of a friendly audience, she is obviously having fun…or that is how middle America reads her expression and body language. To someone more used to the blank expressions of urban mass-transit customers, her enjoyment might come across as smug. But that's a misunderstanding of her kinesics.
As for "respectable?" There you've lost me. Palin's denomination is far less "respectable" in the eyes of U.S. cultural elites than, say, the more staid expressions of Episcopalianism. The more theologically-conservative evangelicals share with Catholicism an old-school insistence on miracles, the importance of theological truths, the objective sinfulness of certain acts, a belief that God requires sexual purity of everyone, and so on. When a person professes such doctrines without reservation or irony, it doesn't make them "respectable" in the sense of giving them an "in" with the movers and shakers. It's often quite the reverse.
Now I sympathize with your view of Palin's church as emotional and anti-intellectual. Keep in mind that it is the religious home of plenty of bright, even brilliant, people. But as a religious tradition, it can't sink its scholarly roots too deeply without contradiction: The New Testament calls Christians to have not only a theology and a soteriology but an ecclesiology, and Protestants can't really have one because none of their churches are old enough! (That's a simplification, but it is a real enough effect.) And I myself lean more towards Apollonian than Dionysian expressions of worship.
But be careful not to equate "emotional" with "anti-intellectual." Emotions are good; God made them for a purpose; when properly directed they engage us wholeheartedly in good things.
The will reasons out decisions in the mind, but emotions should be trained to put steel in our resolve to carry out those well-reasoned decisions. A man isn't a whole man if he amputates his emotions just to make sure they never overwhelm his intellect; he should instead have trained them to obey it. Recall what C.S.Lewis says in Abolition of Man about "Men Without Chests" (or if you haven't read it, try to; it's short and quite worthwhile): A man is less a man if his sense of piety doesn't surge when standing in the ruins at Iona. Emotions can be directed towards a proper object, and people who feign intellectualism by sneering at properly-directed emotion are actually no smarter than anyone else: "Their heads are no bigger than anyone else's; it is only the atrophy of the chests beneath that makes them appear so."
In the case of the worship services at Palin's church? Well, like I said, I'm more Apollonian than Dionysian. But I dare not sneer at people who lift their hands in worship and sing their hearts out and weep over God's grace. That's the attitude that Michael, daughter of Saul, had when David danced. The Bible narrative is pretty clear in its judgment that David, with his wild, undignified dancing about, was right, and she was wrong.
6. Re: "The fact that the Catholic Church seems to mix so readily with this kind of Christianity, and even seems to aspire to be more like it, strikes me as a real danger."
Well, there are dangers of course. But like I said, don't be Michael!
And anyway, Catholicism believes in baptismal regeneration, in transubstantiation, in permanent celibacy for anyone not already married to an opposite-gender person, in sacramental marriage permanency, in the unordainability of women to the priesthood. More: The interconnectedness of the claim to Magisterial authority and the identify of the Catholic Church as THE Church means that the Catholic faith will never change in these areas. Fifty thousand years from now, if Christ has not already returned, the Catholic church will still require homosexuals to be celibate and have an all male priesthood and episcopacy.
So Catholics are, in that sense, more fundamentalist than the fundamentalists; which Catholicism and Fundamentalism cause equal discomfort, and sometimes scorn, if discussed openly at D.C. dinner parties! So there is a sort of natural simpatico between the conservative wing of evangelicalism, and the Catholic church (if the evangelicals can just ditch the leftover dregs of anti-Catholicism!).
7. Re: my statement that "Sure, he has some of the right tools for the job…," you asked, "Just to be clear: is this an opinion you yourself hold, or are you merely articulating the view of the average anti-Obama person?"
That was me articulating the view of the person who opposes Obama, although I have some thoughts in common with them. I do think some of his personality traits are "the right tools for the job"; and I do think his skin color when combined with his manner of speech was a huge net positive for him in the primary and the election. Jesse Jackson could not get elected because he was a (distinctly) black man who sounded like a black preacher; Obama was likely to win if he didn't screw up the campaign because he was a (lightly) black man who sounded mid-way between a professor and a newscaster.
February 12, 2010 8:58 pm
A ;enghthy reply; I haven't had time to read it yet.
One point, though. I did not mean to suggest that I was personally offended by your remarks. I was simply pointing out that they are misguided. "Middle America" constantly complains that the "coastal elites" are dismissive of their ways and beliefs, and in fact don't even deign to find out what those ways and beliefs are.
Meanwhile, those same middle Americans feel free to generalize about the "coastal elites" and don't see the irony of that.
February 12, 2010 10:56 pm
Fair enough. It's certainly true that each group has caricaturish notions about the other group. And it's certainly true that there are serious reasons that each such caricature has evolved within each group and taken up such a powerful hold in that group's imagination.
But that supports my original thesis pretty well, doesn't it? That Palin and Obama come across as appalling to different groups in different ways. Obama-lovers can't fathom what it is about Obama's style and words that makes Palin-lovers recoil, because they're culturally different and Obama's mannerisms don't hit them the same way. Meanwhile Palin-lovers can't fathom what it is about Palin's style and words that makes Obama-lovers recoil, because they're culturally different and Palin's mannerisms don't hit them the same way.
Now I'm prone the same kinds of cultural misunderstandings, myself; I think everyone is. While in Romania I found myself having kinesics misunderstandings with some goths because of the cultural divide, for example. And I was raised an evangelical Christian, coming to Catholicism rather late in the game, so I've had in the last five years to adjust to the cultural differences there. Lots of hidden communicative pitfalls!
But in the U.S., it just so happens that my biography involves hangin' out both with the kind of folk who love Obama and recoil from Palin, and also with the kind of folk who love Palin and recoil from Obama. At least I think that's the reason; but whatever the reason, neither one makes me recoil. (Not for style reasons, anyway.)
So when I listen to Palin I put on my red-state goggles and when I listen to Obama I put on my blue-state goggles. Seen through the appropriate lenses, they both come across as unobjectionable examples, even exemplars, of their respective species. But the different reactions of my red-state and blue-state friends to the two pols suggest to me that the two species tend to communicate in mutually incompatible ways.
BTW, Phosphorious, in rereading my earlier (second) post, I see a couple of points where my words could be construed as criticizing you. That was not my intent.
Will you please read that post with this caveat in mind, that I am not at all trying to audit your orthodoxy or to find fault with you? I am just analyzing how I think two subsets in the American electorate tend to get rubbed the wrong way by the body language and style of the other subset's current pop star.
So for example, when I exclaimed "How odd a reaction!" I wasn't trying to put you down for having had it. I was just saying that that particular reaction was entirely absent in me, and probably in most or all of the folk who favor Palin.
February 12, 2010 11:20 pm
You need to say one thing that he has failed at. He has not yet gotten the most massive and ambitious piece of social legislation in fifty years passed.
Other than that, what has he "failed" at.
Well, considering that health care reform is the only major thing that he's tried to do in the past year, and despite the fact that he has the largest majorities in the house and senate that anyone could ever reasonably expect, he still failed to get anything passed and in the process lost credibility with the public and even politicians in his own party; that coupled with the fact that the economy is in the pit, bleeding jobs all over the place and he's failed to give it the serious consideration that it deserves… that his budget is going to give us, what, 1.6 or 1.8 (I forget) trillion dollar deficit this fiscal year alone – I guess you'll have to tell me what he's so greatly succeeded at in order for me not to consider him a failure to this point.
February 12, 2010 11:42 pm
I relish the comments about Middle America v. Coastal Elites; as I am a fifth generation product of California who has made his home in the heartland.
To phosphorious
There is evil and there is good…nothing is neutral. I wouldn't go so far as to think that abysmal act is done for fun, but it is wanted by many. (some things are at a higher tier of evil than others…using evil to achieve an end is not justifiable…)
Obama certainly supports such killing, how can that be questioned given his actions? He certainly supports many Socialist aims, how can that be questioned? I'm not identifying him as either, but I do see his actions support both…how am I to know what he thinks in his heart of hearts about America?
To Kurt:
What did I say to convince you of that? What do you mean by "people like Scott?" I don't want my taxes to pay for a procedure that I consider to be evil. I'm sure you feel the same way…on what grounds do you make such a claim?
Spirit of Vatican II permalinkFebruary 13, 2010 3:16 am
We Europeans thought the US had returned to sanity in electing Obama — who is a rational and professional politician. But now we have another reason to chortle as Americans prostitute their minds on the mentally ill and totally manipulated ex-governor of Alaska. It is hilarious beyond belief, quite painfully so. We do hope the lady never gets her finger on the nuclear button. We know that she is itching to inflict on Iran the hell that Bush and co. inflicted on Iraq. Kudos to digbydolben for his sensible contribution to this zany thread.
February 13, 2010 4:14 am
Michael, what IS the name of the band you quoted? I seriously want to know…
February 13, 2010 9:02 am
I found an essay on George Orwell in this week's New York Times Sunday Book Review to be reflective on Sarah Palin, in her larger context. If interested, my thoughts on it here: http://rrrrodak.blogspot.com/2010/02/reflections-youre-laughing-now.html
February 13, 2010 11:08 am
"Well, considering that health care reform is the only major thing that he's tried to do in the past year, and despite the fact that he has the largest majorities in the house and senate that anyone could ever reasonably expect, he still failed to get anything passed and in the process lost credibility with the public and even politicians in his own party;"
This is exactly the kind of bizarre criticism coming from conservatives these days.
1)Healthcare hasn't gone through because Seante republicans have filibustered one hundred times, according to one count, in a single year. Find me another time when a minority was so dissmissive of the will of the electorate.
2) Obama's budget is as good as or better than anything the GOP has offered. Tax cuts do not make everything okay. Even the GOP believes that healthcare reform is needed, they have just decided tha Obama will not be allowed to do it. They're children.
2) Which is it: is Obama a rabid partisan who doesn't listen to the minority, or is he moving to the center, thus alienating his own base? Republicans believe both of these things at once. They can't both be true. As far as I'm concerned, Obama has been far too deferential to the obstructionist republicans. I don't remember Bush ever making any concessions.
3) It's been just over a year. Something like 40% of republicans think he should be impeached. Does that sound like sane, reasonable criticism to you? Or is it a symptom of an embittered, desperate party who needs Obama to fail, one way or another?
Conservatives are really, really, crazy. I think the massive defeat you suffered in 2008, as well as the unbroken string of failures that wa sthe Bush administration, has unhinged you all.
February 13, 2010 11:12 am
"Obama certainly supports such killing, how can that be questioned given his actions? He certainly supports many Socialist aims, how can that be questioned? I'm not identifying him as either, but I do see his actions support both…how am I to know what he thinks in his heart of hearts about America?"
I think that parents should be allowed to raise their children as atheists. Does this mean I "support" atheism? Why do I have to explain to a conservative that just because something is wrong, that doesn;t mean that the State is the best means of addressing that wrong?
As for his "socialism". . . you think, I assume, that Medicare and Medicaid are "socialistic" as well?
If so, then the argument is not whteher or not Obama is a socialist. . . he clearly is. . . but whther socialism is bad.
It's clearly not.
February 13, 2010 11:51 am
One caveat: You state: "It's been just over a year. Something like 40% of republicans think he should be impeached."
That figure — and actually I don't think that's quite the right number anyhow — comes from a Daily Kos unscientific poll for which the methodology is highly suspect. In particular the methodology was open to a lot of Kos-aks claiming to be conservatives and intentionally answering with crazy responses.
There is no reliable statistical information, so far as I am aware, about conservatives in general thinking Obama should be impeached.
There is, however, a poll of conservative bloggers over at "RightWingNews.com" There are methodological issues with this poll: Bloggers tend to be a bit more libertarian than average conservatives, for example. And successful bloggers sometimes get that way for saying (and one assumes, thinking) outrageous red-meat kinds of things.
On the other hand, bloggers have long established conservative identification, thus eliminating the problem of the Daily Kos poll.
Anyhow I think the responses in the bloggers poll are considerably more reflective of the conservative norm than those in the Kos poll, which were so flaky as to be utterly implausible.
February 13, 2010 11:56 am
"Well, considering that health care reform is the only major thing that he's tried to do in the past year, and despite the fact that he has the largest majorities in the house and senate that anyone could ever reasonably expect, he still failed to get anything passed. . ."
Your definitions of "failure" and "success" need a closer look.
Let's compare Obama to Bush, for example. Bush didn't take this kind of crap from his own party, did he? Nope. Bush said "Do it!" and it got done. When dems vaguely talked of filibuster, republicans threatened to take it away. And Bush got everything he wanted, no questions asked. War. Torture. Massive deficits (which at the time, conservatives didn't seem to mind!). . . whatever it was, Bush got it.
Would you call that a success? I wouldn't. Look at the consequences of Bush's "success." Open ended war, an economy in ruins, our reputation abroad destroyed. I kind of wish Bush hadn't been so "successful", that his party had pushed back just a little against the demands of perhaps the worst president ever.
But he got re-elected to a second term. . . SUCCESS!
Healthcare reform is a massive undertaking, but most people agree that some kind of reform is necessary. It will involve a huge bureaucracy and a significant per cent of the economy. Shall we rush it through? Would that be preferable?
The democrats are pushing back. The Stupak amendment? Stupak is a democrat, defending life, but working within the framework of reform. Meanwhile republicans filibuster. It is democrats doing th ehard work of hammering out workable compromise, while republicans obstruct.
Should Obama flex his muscles, push things throgh, "het things done?" Would that make you respec t him?
Probably, but your respect means very little. Your measures of "failure" and "success" are badly skewed.
February 13, 2010 12:56 pm
I find it quite funny how "my" definition of success is defined by my "republican" background that you all have outlined for everyone, and for me. You guys are truly a hoot.
Next time I need an oracle I know right where to go.
February 13, 2010 1:35 pm
"I find it quite funny how "my" definition of success is defined by my "republican" background that you all have outlined for everyone, and for me. You guys are truly a hoot."
Ahhh. . . of course. . . you mst be one of those "mavericks" who didn't support Bush either. Seems like catholic blogs are choked with that type these days.
February 13, 2010 3:28 pm
you mst be one of those "mavericks"
I guess I must be. If you say so. But, maybe it's just easier to put people that don't share your opinions in a box.
February 13, 2010 8:31 pm
It's the title of a song by the Kent, OH band Harriet the Spy.
February 13, 2010 8:39 pm
"I guess I must be. If you say so. But, maybe it's just easier to put people that don't share your opinions in a box."
Or perhaps you have simply avoided my main criticism: your belief, shared by many republicans, that Obama has "failed" is insanely precipitous, and strong evidence that republicans are either unwilling or unable to think clearly on this topic.
February 13, 2010 9:57 pm
"That figure — and actually I don't think that's quite the right number anyhow — comes from a Daily Kos unscientific poll for which the methodology is highly suspect. In particular the methodology was open to a lot of Kos-aks claiming to be conservatives and intentionally answering with crazy responses."
The number was 39%. I rounded up.
The poll was commissioned by Dailykos, but executed by Research 2000, a non-partisan polling firm. It was not an online poll.
RightWingNews.com polled a small subset of the conservative population, as you have noted, limiting itself to bloggers. If you claim that this poll gives a better sense of what conservatives believe, I'll agree. . . bit it hardly makes your case, does it?
What conservative politicians do conservatives hate most? Olympis Snow and John McCain. . . both know for their willingness to work with libs.
Who do they respect the most? Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. . . one known for hoping Obama fails, the other recently declaring him to have failed.
And the subtitle of RightWingNews.com is "Kneecapping Obama at every opportunity."
I get the joke. . . they are not REALLY kneecapping Obama. I get it.
But it's obvious that the right is motivated primarly by personal animosity towards Obama.
You HATE him, and for very little reason.
February 14, 2010 2:21 am
Oh, no, phosphorious, they DO have a reason. The reason is that, within the American/British political traditions, he's actually more "conservative" (giving the word its Burkean flavour–having most to do with temperament) than they are. He's a true "conservative" in the traditional mode of English-speaking politics, and they are neo-fascists–that is, radical right-wing reactionary authoritarians, who romanticize the rich, the powerful, the "successful."
February 14, 2010 8:11 am
Michael I. —
Ah. Gotta love those Ohio bands.
Phosphorious —
"…your belief, shared by many republicans…"
We must keep in mind that this concept did not have its genesis as a "belief," but as false propaganda–a spurious "talking point." It is a belief only to those intellectually challenged bleating merinos who suck it up as though it had some basis in reality. Which basis–being only a year into his administration–it just quite simply can't have.
February 14, 2010 4:24 pm
"You HATE him, and for very little reason."
Hate the guy? Me? Not at all.
I think his ideas of the kind of legislation, foreign policy, and judiciary that are morally correct (first priority), would benefit the U.S. (second priority), and would benefit the world (third priority) are mostly wrong, and more egregiously so than has tended to be the case with most, though not all, Republican candidates.
So, sure, I pray for his legislative agenda to fail and for his nominations to the judiciary to be minimal, and for his foreign policy to do less damage than it otherwise would. At the same time I pray fervently for his personal safety, the health and happiness of his wife and children, and that he increase in wisdom, so that his legislative agenda, judicial picks, and foreign policy will change for the better.
Label that attitude as you like. But I don't think "hateful" is particularly apt.
For that matter, neither is "neo-fascist"; that's so far off it reminds me of the equally plausible anti-Catholic accusation that "Catholics are pagans who worship statues of Mary and the Pope is the antichrist."
You can find folk who believe either or both, of course, and sometimes they seem to be surprisingly level-headed people in every other way. But in each case I think it stems from inadequate friendly and respectful exposure to people who believe other than they, or whose life experience is other than theirs. In our society it's remarkably easy to ghettoize ourselves into cabals (or online communities) of like-minded people who echo our caricatures of others back at us until we take them for gospel. We wind up like the blue-state journalist who was shocked after Reagan won the presidential election: "I don't see how that could happen. I don't know anybody who voted for him."
Please don't misunderstand me: I'm not slamming Michael and Digby, and I don't pretend this is only a problem of the left. Ann Coulter is similarly incapable of relating to the thought-life of those who think differently than she, and consequently assumes they have no capability to think at all. And in the Catholic online world I notice some folk seem to take an inordinate glee badmouthing nearly everybody, left, right, up, down, forward or backward.
Perhaps it's a problem of faceless online communication? People who're deterred from insulting behavior in face-to-face meetings by the risk of a punch in the mouth often get inordinately brave behind a computer keyboard.
Anyhow I mainly meant to say that I don't hate the guy even though I didn't vote for him, and really I don't know any conservatives/libertarians/classical liberals who do. I don't deny there are some. There must be; all these stories of cranks surely aren't made up out of whole cloth. But I suppose I've been fortunate not to have known any.
February 14, 2010 7:33 pm
"Hate the guy? Me? Not at all."
I was using the pliral "you". . . conservatives in general.
As evidenced by the "kneecapping Obama at every oppurtinity" mottoe of the conservative website above. And Jim DeMint's explicit claim tnat healthcare reform will be Obama's "Waterloo". . . and attack on the man, not the policy.
And the general consensus, less than a year into Obama's presidency, that he is a "failure."
Hatred is not always a "hot" emotion. It may seem perfectly normal and sane. . . but when you have an irrational aversion to a person, that can be described as hatred.
February 14, 2010 7:43 pm
". . .and for his foreign policy to do less damage than it otherwise would.
Meaning what, exactly? Which particular element of his foreign policy are you expecting to do such damage, and why?
You object to my claim that you "hate" Obama. Fimne. hatred is an ugly emotion. But it is a moral category. My fear for most republicans is that they are literally irrational. Again, that 39% of republicans who think Obama should be impeached seem to have lost touch with reality.
Bush waged unjust and open ended war, ruined the economy and stood by as New Orleans drowned. . . and he nudged the country in a slightly more anti-abortion direction. And conservatives loved him.
Obama is doing his best to fix the many problems left by Bush. . . but has nudged the nation in a slightly more pro-choice direction.
And conservatives lost their minds.
February 15, 2010 5:12 am
I assure you, RC, I have absolutely no difficulty labeling Sarah Palin as what she is–a "neo-fascist"–to folks with whom I'm face-to-face. If that term has any meaning at all–that is, someone who gravitates toward mindless authoritarianism and ultra-nationalism as a governing style, she's it. Obama is, if anything, far too conscientious regarding the niceties of democratic-republican protocol; he needs to govern like FDR and carry fire to the Congressional elections of 2010, like Roosevelt did to those of 1934.
February 15, 2010 9:16 am
I take object to the definition you have attempted for 'neo-fascist.' Fascism, created my Mussolini and characterized by expanionism, militarization of the police force/common life of the people, near complete centralization of the nation's economic planning, and inorganic manipulation of the national culture. Hitler adapted Fascism to make it Nazism, or national-socialism, which adds a racial/mythological history to the nation; coupled with an excessive belief and adherence to what was considered, at the time, to be scientific progress. And Franco, the last of the "great" 20th century proponents of fascism simply used the centralization aspect of fascism to unify a very divided Spain, dropping Mussolini's expansionism and never engaging in Hitler's racial/scientific endeavors.
So, based on historic accounts of fascism, how does Palin's populism actually qualify as "neo-fascist?"
February 15, 2010 4:58 pm
If Sarah Palin were at all a proponent of authoritarianism, mindless or otherwise, or were her variety of national pride particularly extreme in its expression, I would of course be willing to buy that she had fascist tendencies in those two ways. Were she also a strong proponent of government control and/or ownership of business like the National Socialists or the Italian fascists, that would make the label even more apropos. And if she were a racist or anti-Jewish, why, that would clinch it.
But since, as a matter of fact, she's more accurately described as populist and "get government out of the way of our productivity" -ist than as an authoritarian, and since her affection for the United States seems to be within normal levels and modes of expression, and since she's if anything far less economically fascist than Mr. Obama or Mr. Bush before him, the label is utterly misplaced. She is also neither racist nor anti-Jewish, but since you raised neither item, I assume you agree about that.
Words have to mean something, and "fascist" is a label associated with a particular era of history in which particular governments championed particular goals through particular methods. The hallmarks of fascism included nationalism of an extreme, hateful, xenophobic, and militant sort associated with the blood and culture and racial superiority of particular peoples (Germans, Italians) and the oppression they had suffered (real or imagined) at the hands of people of different blood (Jews, the World War I allies). They also included authoritarian control of all aspects of national life in production, employment, religion, education, entertainment, and the like. And they carried to extreme levels the Progressive's instinct for tossing aside social norms and the quaint customs of subsidiary social groups in pursuit of a high destiny centrally determined by a parcel of prigs and professors which the little people are presumed not to understand.
And it's just plain fact that if (as I hope will not happen) Sarah Palin were President of the United States and every member of Congress were a Palin clone, there's no reason to believe the resulting government would act anything like that. There's no reason to suspect a established Church would be created with its sermons censored by the state. There's no reason to suspect that all the businesses would be taken over with all industrial production converted to producing war matériel. There's no reason to believe all the Democrats, or all the black people, would be rounded up and put in camps. There's no reason to believe that the expressions of national pride from the presidential podium would be anything worse than sickeningly sweet and effusive by the standards of internationalists, which is to say, about normal by the standards of most Average Joes in the flyover states. There's no reason to believe all education materials would be federally controlled and the kids compelled to attend state-controlled schools. (If anything, rather the reverse.) If anything, Palin's instincts seem to lean towards greater domestic subsidiarity in every way.
You simply have no evidence to suggest that Palin has fascist tendencies in any of those areas.
There is, I grant, reason to think that the country's foreign-policy stance towards Iran might be as stern as France's is now, or more so. But given Iran's rhetoric toward the U.S., that's a lot like imposing a 2% tariff on a country's goods when that country has a 20% tariff on ours. And while I agree that actually attacking Iran — which I do not at all believe that Palin wishes to do; I think rather that Republican tough-talk is ultimately intended to deter — is likely to produce horrific outcomes, I also believe Iran achieving nuclear weapons will produce horrific outcomes. Inasmuch as I think it extremely likely that one or the other will occur within the next decade, you can say that I'm a pessimist about the whole situation.
But I don't think that talking tough at a regime that's talking tough at you is intrinsically fascist.
Look, I hope very much Palin isn't the presidential candidate for the Republicans in 2010. I don't want her as President. She doesn't have what it takes; or rather, she has less of it than I'm comfortable with.
But you undermine your own side and credibility by applying the fascist label. It isn't quite on the level of "Bushitler," but it's along that same continuum. It's an unserious contribution to the marketplace of ideas, and poisons the wells of political discourse. You should try to be better than that.
February 15, 2010 5:17 pm
And here, my "conservative" friends, is true, non-fascist "conservatism"–which has very little in common with your nasty, populist, nationalist brand:
February 15, 2010 8:31 pm
If the American people really want a president who says, "How's that hopey-changey thing working out for ya?" then I am leaving the country. (And I mean it.)
February 16, 2010 12:36 am
Agreed that policies only tend to hold (or even get enacted: see health care, reform of) if they are popular to some basic extent.
Though keep in mind, one can talk about "striving to overturn Roe" to some basic extent, but really all a president can do is:
1) Advocate in a general way on the abortion issue and
2) Nominate people to the supreme court (if there are vacancies) who seem like they might vote to overturn Roe is an appropriate case came up.
Further, overturning Roe itself is hardly an end unto itself — it's just a means to the beginning of being able to actually debate abortion policy. (Which we've only been able to dance around the periphery of to date.)
None of which is to say it's not important, but I think it's important to be clear that no president can "lead us in a national conversation" on the issue in a way that would actually change policy in a substantive sense. Presidents can make changes at the margins by supporting abortion regulating legislation and efforts to reduce funding to organizations like planned parenthood, but other than that it's up to the court, and if the court loosens things up, primarily to the states.
February 16, 2010 11:52 am
But since, as a matter of fact, she's more accurately described as populist and "get government out of the way of our productivity" -ist than as an authoritarian
In practice, her economics ARE corporatist, monopolist and, in many ways, a vague form of "state socialism." The way she governed Alaska demonstrates this. There is absolutely nothing "small business" or "competitive" about her support for wasteful, tax-sucking corporations.
nationalism of an extreme, hateful, xenophobic, and militant sort associated with the blood and culture and racial superiority of particular peoples (Germans, Italians) and the oppression they had suffered (real or imagined) at the hands of people of different blood
She is, indeed, xenophobic and nationalistic, as is demonstrated by all her palaver about "real Americans," and what is her agenda for the endless expansion of the Zionists into Arab lands but a militant lebensraum policy for a people who've definitely suffered REAL "oppression" (but not, historically, at the hands of the people whose lands they are expropriating?
There's no reason to believe all the Democrats, or all the black people, would be rounded up and put in camps.
No, not the "Democrats" or the "black people,"–just all the Muslims, the "terrorists," whom the President could water-board first.
I also believe Iran achieving nuclear weapons will produce horrific outcomes.
Exactly why? Because they're not white Europeans? Have THEY ever used nuclear weapons? No–wait–wasn't it a nation of mostly white Europeans who used nuclear weapons, once, for genocidal purpose? Does it hurt the world that India has nuclear weapons?
And I didn't say "fascist"; I said "neo-fascist," and I'm NOT backing down from it.
February 16, 2010 12:58 pm
your belief, shared by many republicans, that Obama has "failed" is insanely precipitous
That's like saying that I'm wrong because I'm ugly. I might be ugly, but it still doesn't tell me why I'm wrong.
I've got an idea. Why not try telling me what he's succeeded at?
February 16, 2010 1:00 pm
If the American people really want a president who says, "How's that hopey-changey thing working out for ya?" then I am leaving the country. (And I mean it.)
If I ate a french fry every time I heard that, I would weigh 600 lbs.
February 16, 2010 5:19 pm
"your belief, shared by many republicans, that Obama has "failed" is insanely precipitous
That's like saying that I'm wrong because I'm ugly. I might be ugly, but it still doesn't tell me why I'm wrong.
I've got an idea. Why not try telling me what he's succeeded at?"
Not at all.
Look, my point is that the proof that republicans and conservatives are irrational is that they started calliong Obama a "failure" within weeks of his taking office. And those were the saner conservatives. The REALLY crazy ones set up a website Impeachobama.org on the day Obama was nominated. He hadn't even been elected yet, and conservatives were demanding he be "impeached."
But even the saner conservatives were calling him a failure all too soon. They were not soberly weighing the evidence, they were not analyzing the facts. . . they were waiting to pounce, and jumped too soon.
Is Obama a "failure"? I would prefer that he be more forceful in undoing the disastrous policies of the Bush administration, and I wish he would do more to push health care reform through.
But his stimulus seemed to work, in that it prevented a larger economic crisis.
And helath care reform is not yet dead (no thanks to the filibustering minority), and may well be passed in some form.
Otherwise, he's a bit more than a year into a four year term.
Ask me at the two year mark, and I'll be in a better position to judge.
Unlike the conservatives in this country who have made up their minds already.
Rodak permalinkFebruary 16, 2010 7:01 pm
"Neo-fascist" is precisely the correct descriptive term for Sarah and the Tea-baggers, and I whole-heartedly second its use above. Check it out: Spanish is the "new Yiddish."
Comments are closed.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
How To Use Xbox Live
If you're looking to get into the world of online gaming, you need to learn how to use Xbox Live. Xbox Live is one of the best systems for connecting with and playing against gamers all over the globe. Even if you don't like games, learning how to use Xbox Live will let you utilize things such as Facebook, Netflix, and Twitter straight from your console. These following tips will help you learn how to use Xbox Live so you can make the most of your system!
To learn how to use Xbox Live, you're going to need the following:
- An Xbox 360 System
- An ethernet cable
- A router that is compatible with your Xbox 360
- A high-speed Internet connection
- An active credit or debit card
- Connect Your Xbox To The Router. Using the ethernet cable, connect your Xbox to the router, and then the router to your computer. Make sure that your Internet connection is up and running, otherwise you won't be able to use Xbox Live. If your Xbox is the only thing in your entire house that's going to be connected to the Internet, you can simply connect it to the modem with an ethernet cable.
- Test The Connection. Turn on the Xbox, and go to "My Xbox" in the menu. Then, select "Network Settings" followed by "Test Xbox Live Connection." When prompted, accept the software update and allow the system to try out the connection itself.
- Sign Up For Xbox Live. If everything connected successfully, you're almost ready to start using Xbox Live! All you need to do is to sign up for Xbox Live, which you can do by going to "My Xbox" once again and select your avatar. From there, you'll need to select your avatar and then "Sign Up For Xbox Live." Follow the on-screen prompts, and enter your information as it is requested. Note, that if you want to fully use Xbox Live, you need to sign up for a Gold membership, which will mean you'll need to give your credit card information for billing purposes.
Learning how to use Xbox Live is almost as easy as learning how to turn on your console! Following these steps to learn how to use Xbox Live will ensure that you're always able to jump right into the online gaming scene with your Xbox console!
What Others Are Reading Right Now.
Acting, comedy and strong spirits converge in Speakeasy. When host Paul F. Tompkins interviews entertainers—Key and Peele, Alison Brie, Rob Delaney, Zach Galifianakis—about all sor …
10 Things Women Expect Men to Know How To Do
To make ladies swoon or at least not cringe, you'd better be able to handle the following…
Emma Watson and Other Child Stars Who Grew Up To Be Hot
Throughout the Harry Potter film series, we've seen Emma Watson transform from a lovable child star into a burgeoning sex symbol. She's not the first actress to do so, and she cert …


text:
Hasbro.com/avengers is the official site of Avengers Toys and Avengers Action Figures from Hasbro. Play Avengers online games and watch Avengers videos.
The mighty THOR has come to Earth to face down any evil that threatens humanity. Every blow of his mighty hammer shatters the air like thunder. When he calls down the fury of the storms that are his to command, no enemy can stand against him. With the other AVENGERS™ by his side, he is absolutely ......More
Banished by his enraged father to the tiny realm of Midgard, THOR wandered the wild lands of Earth for many years. Only recently has he found a group of warriors worthy of being called his peers. More important, his association with the heroes of Earth has provided him with enemies worthy of the ......More
Now you can rule the ring with one of your favorite Marvel Super Hero characters. Get ready for some super-strong battling action with this head-popping game. Challenge a friend to a battle with Thor, known for his incredible power and resistance to injury, as he sets out to strike, and punch his ......More
Thor has faced many foes and won countless victories, but even the mighty god of thunder has not escaped entirely unscathed. Thor was grievously wounded by Hela, the goddess of death, and disguised his injuries behind his beard until he was finally healed. The enemies of justice don't stand a ......More
Thor crushes evil with superhuman strength and his indestructible hammer! Wielding the powers of Asgard, he unleashes a storm of fury upon any enemies that threaten the world he has sworn to protect. Super-size your superhero adventures with the superhuman Avenger! This Titan Hero Series Thor ......More
Thor is the sworn protector of both Earth and Asgard. With his hammer Mjolnir in his hand there is nothing that can stand in his way! Even the very toughest opponents are no match for you and your Thor figure! When enemies approach, press this 10-inch electronic figure's belt to unleash his ......More
Thor crushes evil with superhuman strength and his indestructible hammer! Wielding the powers of Asgard, he unleashes a storm of fury upon any enemy that threatens the world he has sworn to protect. Super-size your superhero adventures with this incredible Titan Hero Series Thor figure! This ......More
This Marvel's Hawkeye figure is a hardcore sharpshooter for the forces of good! He's ready to use his marksmanship in all your adventures! Collect the entire Rocket Raccoon series (other figures sold separately) to get the parts to build a full Rocket Raccoon figure. Power up with your ......More
This menacing villain serves the evil Malekith. He's been transformed from his normal form into a sinister, even more powerful creature with one thing in mind: wreaking havoc on the realm of Asgard! Are you ready for all-new incredible Thor adventures? This Marvel's Kurse figure looks ......More
Take on the role of the bringer of lightning with this electronic Thor Lightning Strike Hammer! Villains will fear you when you swing this motion-activated hammer. The crackling lightning storm and crashing thunder sounds will make the action seem immortal! Imagine that you're unleashing the ......More


text:
Please log in or register to manage your account
Model: 5360 Item: AVE5360
Simply type a master list once and copy onto multiple sheets of blank labels to create as many labels as you need. Labels feed easily through most popular office copiers. This product was made from wood that came from a certified managed forest. Label Size - text: 1 1/2 x 2 13/16; Label Color(s): White; Machine Compatibility: Copiers; Material(s): Paper.
Avery® Extra-Wide Heavy-Duty View Binder w/One Touch EZD Rings, 1-1/2" Capacity, White
$10.91$698 / each
Avery® Extra-Wide Heavy-Duty View Binder with One Touch EZD Rings, 3" Capacity, White
$14.87$1041 / each


text:
User talk:Herbythyme
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
What now
So what did we (not) do this time? Tell us who to slap. :( --Nemo 09:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- +1 -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I thanked you on Commons, but you certainly also deserves it here. So, thanks. Hopefully you'll come back some day. Trijnsteltalk 10:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's sad to see you leave, Herby, I'm surprised that you've decided to retire. I respect your decision, but I also hope you'll return one day. I've really enjoyed working with you. Thanks for everything! Mathonius (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
No... :'(
Thanks for everything. Meta looses one of the best users and functionaries we ever had. So sad to see. Best regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- A pity to see you leave, it was always a pleasure to work with you. Thanks for all your work. Savhñ 13:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Really sad to see you going! I hope to see you again at some point and hopefully we can work togehter again! Thanks for all your contribuations and work here! -Barras talk 15:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
It's a shame that you're leaving, thank you for all you have done for the projects! -Mh7kJ (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry to see you go. Wishing you the best in your life. --Meno25 (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


text:
Shopping cart empty
Shopping cart empty
Prostate Optimizer supports healthy prostate function and urinary flow and healthy cell replication.
Optional: Help others find your review.Enter Descriptive Keywords (ex. heart, cholesterol, arteries)
Statements & claims about Prostate Optimizer (90 softgels) & natural alternative remedies have not been evaluated by the FDA. Information herein is not intended to diagnose, cure or prevent disease, and is not provided by Jarrow Formulas. Before starting any exercise, diet or supplementation program using Prostate Optimizer (90 softgels), consult with a qualified health care professional, especially if you are taking prescription medications & drugs. Our cheap, discounted prices on Prostate Optimizer (90 softgels), vitamin supplements & nutritional food supplements are updated daily and change without notice. Show site changes.
Featured & Important Products |
Complete Vitamin Supplement Catalog |
Recently Updated and New Products


text:
The Havenport Police Department is brought onto the case and Roderick's role as sheriff is called into question – leading him to make a shocking decision that threatens the safety of Joey. Meanwhile, Ryan goes against the FBI, hoping to gain the trust of one of Joe's followers.
Download the TV Guide app for iPhone, iPad and Android!


text:
Chih Wu
Gallagher & Lindsey, Inc.
2424 Central Ave.
Alameda, CA 94501
Cell: (510) 213-1346
Fax: (510) 523-1570
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
visit us on YELP:
Like us on Facebook:
Chih Wu, REALTOR, represents home buyers or sellers in the following Northern California cities and neighborhoods: Adams Point, Alameda, Albany Hill, Bay Farm, Bayo Vista, Berkeley Hill, Broadmore, Bronze Coast, Claremont, Claremont Hills, China Hill, Chinatown, Central, Craigmont, Crocker Highlands, Dolores/Parish, Dimond, East End, Edison, Emeryville, El Cerrito, Elmwood, Estudillo Estate, Fernside, Floresta Garden, Fremont, Fruitvale, Glenview, Gold Coast, Haddon Hill, Harbor Bay, Hayward, Heron Bay, Hiller Highlands, Jack London, Kensington, Laurel, North Berkeley, North Oakland, Marina, Manor, Maxwell Park, Millsmont, Montclair, Oakmore, Oaknoll, Oceanview, Otis, Piedmont, Piedmont Avenue, Piedmont Pines, Pond, Redwood Heights, Richmond, Ridgemont, Rockridge, San Antonio, San Leandro, San Lorenzo, Skyline, Southshore, Temescal, Thousand Oaks, Trestle Glen, Union City, Upper Rockridge, Washington Manor, West End.
Please read our disclaimer and our privacy statement.
Return to: Alameda Real Estate About - Featured Listings - Search for Homes - Free ReportsFavorite Links - Apply Online - School Info - Community LinksDream Home Finder - Resource Center - Your Home's Value - Local Partners Real Estate Websites by Advanced Access © 1998-2014
Return to: Alameda Real Estate
Real Estate Websites by Advanced Access © 1998-2014


text:
Photos: Sinkhole puzzles couple after pond drains on property
Published On: Mar 18 2013 10:29:25 PM PDT
Updated On: Mar 18 2013 11:22:08 PM PDT
Updated On: Mar 18 2013 11:22:08 PM PDT
A Newcastle couple is reacting after finding a sinkhole on their property.
For more photos and videos, tap the Pics & Video tab along the bottom of your KCRA 3 app.
The views expressed are not those of this site, this station or its affiliated companies. By posting your comments you agree to accept our terms of use.blog comments powered by Disqus


text:
tion campaign. Participants from across the nation met in Raleigh, North Carolina; Austin, Texas; and Seattle, Washington, to review, evaluate, and learn from their experiences during the vaccination campaign. The 2009 H1N1 vaccination campaign was one of the biggest public health initiatives in U.S. history, and a thorough and critical evaluation of the campaign presents an important opportunity to examine the nation's response to a public health threat and to identify useful lessons, promising practices, and other strategies to improve future emergency vaccination campaigns.
In April 2009, the first cases of a new strain of influenza A—referred to as the 2009 H1N1 influenza—were detected in California. Because of the potentially severe health consequences of a pandemic influenza, the detection of these cases set off a coordinated wave of activity across the public health system to minimize public health consequences.2 Each year in the United States, between 5 and 20 percent of the population is infected with the seasonal flu, and on average approximately 24,000 people die of flu-related causes (range 3,300 to 48,600) (CDC, 2010c). However, in a pandemic, the infection rate and death toll can be much higher. The pandemic of 1918 killed an estimated 50 million people worldwide (about 3 percent of the global population) and approximately 675,000 people in the United States alone (CDC, 2010d). Pandemics also occurred in 1957 and 1968, although they were less severe.
Adding to the sense of urgency, previous pandemic response planning efforts had largely focused on influenza A virus subtype H5N1. Unlike 2009 H1N1, H5N1 has a low human-to-human transmission rate but a very high mortality rate; more than half of humans known to have been infected with the current Asian strain of H5N1 avian influenza died from it (WHO, 2006). The surveillance and laboratory systems developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as part of these planning efforts were responsible for the early detection of 2009
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza A virus emerges for which there is little or no immunity in the human population, begins to cause serious illness, and then spreads easily person-to-person worldwide. A pandemic is determined by spread of disease, not its ability to cause death" (CDC, 2010b).


text:
Designed specifically for the female angler, these highly versatile, lightweight, feature rich H2No® Performance Standard waders can be worn in the widest range of fishing scenarios—from small streams to big rivers.
We promote fair labor practices, safe working conditions and environmental responsibility throughout the Patagonia supply chain.
Below are the suppliers that impact the Patagonia Women's Spring River Waders - Petite
Read more


text:
Natural support for a healthy prostate and urinary tract
More Info...
Natural boost for bile production
Essential Nutrient for good health and survival
Promotes deep sleep and relaxation
Powerful protection from free radicals
Natural stress-buster and energy booster
Natural brain energy booster
All natural nourishment for healthy hair and nails
Powerful antioxidant protection and immune support
Remember when doctors made house calls? Well, this is the next best thing! Every week, True Health Weekly™ delivers breakthrough solutions and discoveries to boost your energy levels... fight off common health problems... and help you enjoy life on your terms! And the good news is: True Health Weekly™ is absolutely FREE when you join today!
"Just a quick note to let you know that your Customer Service employee I spoke with is a great rep for True Health™! I appreciated her professional telephone manners, quick and intelligent responses to my questions, and suggestions. Since this was my first contact with your company, she made an awesome, positive impression. Even though I have an APO address, I received my ordered products in record time! I'm looking forward to using your product."
—B. Oyamot
"I really like your product and I value that if someone is unhappy with it, you return their money. Also, the shipping and processing are very fast."
—Becky Prieve
"Just want to thank you for the fast refund. Most companies tend to give one a hard time, but not True Health™. Thanks so much!"
—J.H. Christian, Sr.
Key ingredients include: Aquamin® 100% natural organic calcium, vitamin K2, olive leaf extract, vitamin D3 and magnesium.
Users routinely report:
Calcium is critical for bone health. That's why you should eat calcium-rich foods and take calcium supplements. But there's a problem… most people are taking the wrong kind of calcium—and they're getting little to no bone strengthening results from it.
Many calcium supplements—like the ones containing calcium carbonate—use inorganic forms of calcium found in limestone, oyster shells, coral, and ground water. And frankly, your body doesn't know what to do with calcium in that form.
Some of it may end up in your bones, but a lot of it gets deposited in your joints, causing calcification and discomfort... may impact your arteries and veins… shows up in your brain… ends up in breast tissue… and can affect healthy blood pressure levels.
You'd be better off if you toss those calcium pills in the trash!
Your body needs calcium that comes from natural, organic food sources, so it can be easily assimilated by your body and stored properly in your bones.*
Maintaining optimal bone density is no laughing matter. Nearly ten million Americans already have issues with bone density—and another 34 million are at risk.
As a result, scientists estimate that nearly half of all women will end up with weak bones. And one in four men will also experience decreased bone integrity. And it doesn't take much. If you have weak, fragile bones, this can lead to impacts in several areas of your health!
The good news is… you can enjoy better bone health—no matter how old you are. But what exactly does that mean? Here are some facts about healthy bones:
But you don't have to accept bone loss as an inevitable part of growing older. A remarkable new discovery can help you grow healthy, strong bones—and strengthen your hips, wrists and spine, along with bones throughout your body. It's called Ultimate Bone GRO Formula™.
Ultimate Bone GRO Formula™ is a proprietary blend of cutting-edge nutrients that work synergistically to increase bone growth... balance the normal process of bone remodeling... and increase bone density so you can stand tall and be strong well into your 90s and beyond! You get…
Aquamin® calcium—This "Cadillac of Calcium supplements" comes from rare red algae seaweed that's rich in organic calcium, magnesium, and 74 other trace minerals, including zinc, iron and selenium. In studies, it improved walking distance, joint mobility and discomfort levels for individuals and was found to soothe and protect joints, increasing comfort in just two weeks.*
Vitamin K2—The "missing link" for optimum bone density, vitamin K2 shuttles calcium OUT of your bloodstream—where it can deposit in your circulatory system—and puts it BACK in your bones, where it belongs. So not only does it support strong, dense bones, but it also boosts heart and vein health.*
Olive leaf extract—Research shows that olive leaf extract helps osteoblast cells create MORE bone growth—while blocking osteoclast cells from breaking down your bones too fast. Studies found that it helps support bone strength and balance the inflammatory response.*
Vitamin D3—The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) reports this remarkable nutrient has been scientifically proven to promote healthy bones—PLUS it helps promote balanced inflammation throughout your body. Studies show that it can support hip joint strength and integrity in elderly women by 69% and—when coupled with calcium—it improved muscle strength by 49%.*
Magnesium—This highly soluble mineral is easy to digest and works to enhance benefits of calcium.*
Plus, Ultimate Bone GRO Formula™ also contains trace minerals including zinc, copper, boron, and manganese for total bone health!
Remember, natural nutritional supplements work differently for different people. You could easily start to notice positive changes from Ultimate Bone GRO Formula™ in as little as 30 days. However, you'll likely experience better results after 60 to 90 days. Consistent use over time improves effectiveness. For optimal results, combine with proper nutrition and daily exercise.
Each bottle of Ultimate Bone GRO Formula™ contains 180 tablets, or a one month supply, if taken at the recommended dosage of 3 tablets twice daily.
180 tablets per bottle
Click Here to View Product Label
How do I take Ultimate Bone GRO Formula™?
How long will it take Ultimate Bone GRO Formula™ to work?
Can I take Ultimate Bone GRO Formula™ if I have an existing medical condition or am taking prescription medications?
Where is Ultimate Bone GRO Formula™ made?
Can I give Ultimate Bone GRO Formula™ to my child or pet?
Q. How do I take Ultimate Bone GRO Formula™?
A. The recommended dose of Ultimate Bone GRO Formula™ is 3 tablets, 2 times a day—or as directed by your health care professional.
Q. How long will it take Ultimate Bone GRO Formula™ to work?
A. Health supplements work differently for different people. You could easily start to notice positive changes from Ultimate Bone GRO Formula™ in as little as 30 days. However, you'll likely experience better results after 60 to 90 days. Consistent use over time improves effectiveness. For optimal results, combine with proper nutrition and daily exercise.
Q. Can I take Ultimate Bone GRO Formula™ if I have an existing medical condition or am taking prescription medications?
A. If you have a medical condition or are on medication, it's best to consult with your healthcare professional before taking Ultimate Bone GRO Formula™ or any other dietary supplement.
Q. Where is Ultimate Bone GRO Formula™ made?
A. Ultimate Bone GRO Formula™ is manufactured and packaged in the United States. Our manufacturing is performed in fully licensed and FDA certified facilities to assure compliance with the latest industry guidelines, government regulations and quality assurance practices.
Q. Can I give Ultimate Bone GRO Formula™ to my child or pet?
A. Before giving Ultimate Bone GRO Formula™–or any nutritional supplements—to your child, please consult with your healthcare professional. Also, check with your vet before giving supplements to your pet.
Click Here to Read Important Information Regarding Customer Reviews
True Health™ is providing this space as a place for customers to share their personal experiences with the products available on our web site. As you read these customer comments, please keep the following information in mind:
True Health™ has not approved the content of these comments, and neither has the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or any other governmental agency.
There is strong scientific support for the benefits of True Health's™ products. However, the only benefits with such scientific support are the ones that True Health™ itself claims on the product description page for each product on this web site. There may not be scientific support for a benefit or experience described by customers in the comments and product reviews.
This product is not intended to treat, cure, or prevent any disease or medical condition.
Click Here to Close
Click for larger and vertical image


text:
Worship Services
Worship Services
|Welcome to Enoree Baptist Church
We'd love to have you visit Enoree Baptist Church this coming Sunday or for any of our other bible studies and programming throughout the week. We are a Christ-centered, Bible-based fellowship, dedicated to serving our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. We invite you to join in worship and celebration of our Savior who gave His life for us. On these pages you'll find information about our services and times, what's happening for children and students, and much more. We want to make it easy for you to get to church and enjoyable when you arrive. We want you to be able to experience the great music, encouraging messages, friendly people and enjoyable atmosphere that are a part of the Enoree. Your first time at a church, any church, brings up some questions. Whether you're a member, a visitor, or just stopping by to look around, we trust you'll find information to help answer your questions right here. If, however, you still have questions, don't hesitate to contact us. We look forward to hearing from you!
|Finding your way around our campus
We have three main meeting areas at our church, the Sanctuary, our Fellowship Building we call "Building B", and The Student Center / Gym. Our Sanctuary is located centrally in the middle of the campus and offers multiple entrances with large parking areas surrounding the building. "Building B" is located to the left of the Sanctuary with parking and main entrance located in the rear of the building. The Student Center / Gym is located to the right of the Sanctuary with parking and main entrance in front of the building.
Service Times:
*9:30am – Sunday School (Various locations on Campus)
*10:30am – Worship Service
(Main Sanctuary)
*6:00pm – Group Bible Study
(Building B)
Children & Student groups meet downstairs Wednesdays *5:30-6:30pm – Evening Meal
(Building B) *6:30-7:30pm – Adult & Children's Ministry
(Building B)
*6:15-8:00pm – The Gathering Student Min.
(Student Center / Gym)
|Click here to discover "The Story" of God's great love for us. This only takes a minute…but it is eternally important for all of us!
|Click on the icon above to download the Spiritual Gifts Inventory.


text:
Results 1 to 2 of 2
I'm kind of new to changing the sudoers file.... I installed ushare on my xfce and i wrote a script to start it the script is as follows Code: #!/bin/bash ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
- 01-22-2013 #1
- Join Date
- Jan 2013
- Posts
- 1
editing sudoers file
I installed ushare on my xfce and i wrote a script to start it the script is as follows
#!/bin/bash sudo /etc/init.d/ushare start echo "Media Server Started Enjoy :) sleep 5 exit
i created a desktop launcher to run the script on double click
[Desktop Entry] Version=1.0 Type=Application Name=XboxStream Comment=Stream Videos to Xbox Exec=ushare.sh Icon=xfce-unknown Path=/bin/ Terminal=true StartupNotify=false
thanks in advance,
- 01-22-2013 #2
- Join Date
- May 2011
- Location
- Brazil
- Posts
- 21
Change the permission with chmod command


text:
Natchez man dies from burns suffered in house fire
Updated On: Jan 28 2013 02:31:31 PM CST
A 70-year-old Natchez man has died from severe burns to his upper body and face days after he fell asleep smoking a cigarette resulting in his bed and sheets catching fire.
Officials told The Natchez Democrat that Bill Grover Hammett died Saturday at the Joseph M. Still Burn Center at Doctors Hospital in Augusta, Ga.
Adams County Sheriff Chuck Mayfield said deputies responded to a report of a house fire at 1:06 a.m. Wednesday.
Mayfield said arson investigator Sgt. Buddy Frank inspected the house after the fire and was able to corroborate Hammett's statement about how the fire started.
Copyright 2013 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.