Oh, yeah the embarassing stuff.

Seems I forgot something. Her skeletons in the front closet.

She has some trouble with her state troopers. There is also video from a news report.

As mentioned earlier, Gov. Palin is embroiled in her own trooper-gate scandal up in Alaska. In short, she's accused of using her pull as governor to get her ex-brother-in-law fired as a state trooper. The brother-in-law is embroiled in an ugly divorce and custody with Palin's sister. And after his boss wouldn't fire the brother-in-law, she fired the boss. Palin originally insisted there was nothing to the story. More recently, she was forced to admit the one of her top deputies had pushed to get the guy fired.

Here's one our recent reports on the story. And we'll be bringing you an updated report shortly.

...

If it actually proves true...Maverick? Reformer? Wait, she is a Republican? No one is going to care.


And then there is her campaign for the governorship. Do you know who supported, campaigned, and did a commercial for her? Ted Stevens. You know the one being pursued for corruption and criminal activities. TPM notes that she has had the ad with her and Stevens. In it he praises here and declares people need to vote for her to continue his legacy...Gosh I wonder if he will be invited on the trail?

Well, she expunged the ad from here web page. Not that it took long for TPM to find it on YouTube.



Gosh. Why wouldn't she like people to watch this?

A choice made.

McCain's choice is in, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska. She's young and less than half-way through her first term as governor, out of being mayor of a smallish town, and before than a city council member. She's a conservative, anti-choice, anti-gay, and looks ready to follow McCain's lead.

I suppose it is also of use to note she is a woman. Not a big deal to me, but it is something historic to note, the second VP nominee that has been a woman. But I am not thrilled with her politics. Her sex is immaterial. So before getting into that, let us chat.

Sigh. Yes, she is a woman, a Republican, and quite quite conservative.

But that doesn't clear you to be an ass online. Already in going around and looking at reactions on different threads and blogs I am seeing...well, what we all usually see when guys get ticked at a woman online...offensive language. To start their are the ones that, for some reason, are calling her a bimbo. It doesn't make any sense. And from there it escalates, up to comments on her sexuality. Why? How does it help, promote discussion, justify, counter, or do anything of value? It is just stupid. It was stupid when it happen to Hillary Clinton, when it is happens to Pelosi, or Secretary Rice, or even Ann Coulter. Just fucking stupid. "Oh, those close-minded and mean conservatives nominated a $!#$#@#..." How dumb do you look? And it is said when it is tossed at people like Obama as well. All I can say is grow up. Look at CNN where an idiot asked if she can care for a child with Down Syndrome and be the Veep? And as the other reporter there pointed out, that is just the type of stupid point that McCain's people, like Bay Buchanan, will use to rally anger. Because no one would ask if the child's father could do the job. So, reporters, analyst, pundits, bloggers, asshat thread zombies...just...like you'll listen...


Now looking at Gov Palin.

This is the end of any serious claim that experience trumps change. Though conservatives are still trying to claim that she is very experienced and surpasses Obama...We'll see how that pans out.

TPM:

...John McCain's central and best argument in this campaign is that Barack Obama simply lacks the experience to be President of the United States. And now John McCain, who is a cancer survivor who turns 72 years old today, is picking a vice presidential nominee who has been governor of a small state for less than two years and prior to that was mayor of a town with roughly one-twenty-seventh of the citizens that Barack Obama represented when he was a state senator in Illinois.

...

How determined is McCain to have a wise adviser on the wars we are in, and ready to jump in and take the reigns and handle being C-n-C? Guess it is not that big an issue now.

So, what does she bring?

...

First up, she's super anti-choice. The forced-pregnancy crowd is thrilled today! (She recently had her fifth child, who has Down's syndrome.) She's against marriage equality and supports a federal gay-marriage ban, but has made sure to note that she "has gay friends." Though she has signed on to same-sex partner benefits. She believes schools should teach creationism. She's also pretty terrible on environmental issues, and is a huge advocate of drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. ...

Oh yeah. Palin is great. And she is a creationist to!!!

Here was an early Obama camp response.

“Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares John McCain’s commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush’s failed economic policies — that’s not the change we need, it’s just more of the same,” said Bill Burton, Obama Campaign Spokesman.

So why not one of the other conservative women, who actually bring some experience?

...

Watching Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) this morning - a woman who would have been eminently qualified for VP (for a Republican) - trying to talk positively about Palin was almost painful to watch. Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Condi Rice, even Christine Todd Whitman would have brought more to the ticket for McCain than Palin.

This is a complete desperation move on McCain's part, trying to hold the base together in a weak attempt to pull off some Hillary voters. It's not going to work. Palin doesn't come close to sharing the values of Hillary voters.

...

Here is further analysis of this choice.

Feministing:

...

The pick of Palin is dripping with transparent condescension, the notion that the enthusiasm behind Hillary was simply the result of her being a woman, that it had nothing to do with what she actually stood for, and in that sense it's equally sexist. Palin is essentially a hard right ideologue, and therefore nothing like Hillary as far as substance is concerned. It's not very different from running Alan Keyes against Barack Obama in 2004. The conservative media reaction has already engaged in paternalistic language, with FOX News reporting on television that "McCain broke the glass ceiling," implying in fact, that the pick had nothing to do with Palin or her qualifications, but merely her gender. It's fitting that the party positing affirmative action as a program that picks people exclusively based on race or gender rather than qualification should do something similar given an opportunity for political advancement. ...

And I note this from Firedoglake:

...

The good news is that women's issues are going to become front and center for this campaign. I haven't seen enough of Palin to know how well she could do against Biden in a debate, but I'm not sure it matters. If she doesn't make some horrible gaffe, what she stands for symbolically will be more important than anything she says.

...

Yes. On the one hand with her and her conservative stand on women's issues, perhaps she and her party can be drawn into a debate on women's issues. But she is being portrayed as green and youthful. The media and dems will play on that hard. But that means the level of expectation on her will be amazingly low. Remember GW and the debates in '00 and '04? He got pass after pass. Why play into that trap? If they lose sight of the issues she represents it will be bad. Just like letting McCain be the war hero, and not the guy with bad policy is deadly.

Obama's speech video

Here is the video out of TPM.

Why Vaccinate?

Dr. Novella looks at some new outbreaks of old diseases in places that are not suitably vaccinating people. Thanks kooks!


Measles Outbreak - Thanks, Jenny

First Measles Now Mumps

The McCain Solutions

Solution Number 1: REDEFINITION

Crooks and Liars:

The McCain campaign likes to tell us we’re a “nation of whiners” complaining about a “mental recession,” so it should come as no surprise that their solution to the health care crisis is to simply have the Census Bureau redefine the term uninsured. Seriously. Let John Goodman, McCain’s point-man on health care issues, explain:

“I have a solution. And it will cost not one thin dime,” Mr. Goodman said. “The next president of the United States should sign an executive order requiring the Census Bureau to cease and desist from describing any American – even illegal aliens – as uninsured. Instead, the bureau should categorize people according to the likely source of payment should they need care.

...

And now there are no UNINSURED. Then you REDEFINE the homeless as criminals, and HOMELESSNESS is fixed (Stole that from Babylon 5.). Wow, it is great when you aren't confined by reality. How Orwellian.

Obama's speech

It was a great speech, a powerful speech, and it seems that the Republcians are little stunned for the moment, at least all they are saying right now is the standard autopilot remarks, not to worry tomorrow the BS will be flung. But tonight he stepped up in front of America, and on McCain's foot. John McCain is on notice, he better be ready for a real campaign for the presidency.

TPM has Obama's speech to read, while we wait for the video to get out.

Gore's speech today

Former Vice President Al Gore

Wednesday night speeches

Wednesday had some great speeches.

Senator John Kerry



President Bill Clinton



AND

Vice Presidential nominee Joe Biden

Rending the bloom from the flower

Crooks and Liars is looking at the odd move by many of the news shows to inundate their air with conservatives tearing down the speakers and mood. Apparently each and every speech has been a failure and a disappointment, and the delegates are about to break and never talk again...at least if you listen to some pundits.

Every time I turn on the TV and watch CNN and FOX (my hotel doesn’t get MSNBC) every Republican operative controls the dialog and direction of the panel discussion and it’s disgusting. Just one example—Hillary Clinton gave a brilliant speech last night, but every Amy Holmes-type talking head throws as much cold water on the speech as he or she can. The result is that the Dem talkers spend the rest of the time disputing the outrageous claims made and thus the GOP controls the entire framing and the entire segment. It’s shameful that the networks are allowing this to happen. I saw Jeffrey Toobin tell Amy that she was out of her mind with some of her comments and the discussion continues to that end. Soledad O’Brien comes back and says “well, that was a lively discussion.” Oh, no it was not. It’s a calculated ratf&@k. This is going on all day and all night.

...

Will the Democratic talkers be allowed to do the same to the Republican Convention? I think not. It will be viewed as being an incredible event.

Yeah, apparently the Clinton speech was a failure. Soledad was down playing it on CNN. And Joe and Mika were in shock and disbelief anytime someone said otherwise. That is Mika was playing along with Joe and playing lackey until he started to mock a female analyst they were talking to and she was a little pissy until after the commercial break. That was slightly funny as she was gesturing and mirroring and agreeing with everything Gold Old Joe was saying then he started mocking the woman and she snapped out of her role (Really, you could see her straighten up, get serious and quiet and just stare at him.). She should try doing that more often and on the big political issue.

But the dumbest stuff is getting being made into something. You have heard about column-gate, right? Apparently it is really big news that Obama may have some columns behind him when he gives his acceptance speech. I did say it was BIG NEWS... Granted it is not clear if these were just frames for another structure to be put on or actual columns. But the conservatives and the media always eager to chase the red ball are salivating.

And the news coverage all strangely ignores the GOP's own love of using columns in speech backdrops.

Then you have Brian Williams expressed opinions that Obama's history is bizarre. Apparently a Kenyan - Kansas - South Pacific story is freaky. From a person with a Midwestern - South American story, Brian Williams you are a waspish ass. Thanks for calling all of us kids of diversity feel...special.

Tuesday at the Convention

Here is Clinton's speech.



And this afternoon's move to make Obama the nominee.

Isn't that sweet.

Feministing looks at a charming new book that seeks to scare and shame women away from sexuality.

If I didn't know better I would think it was my birthday - because it's not often that an anti-feminist organization gives you a gift like this one.

The Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute* has put out Sense & Sexuality, a handy little anti-feminist guide to sex by none other than Miriam Grossman, author of the slut-shaming book Unprotected (not to be confused with the similarly titled slut-shaming book Unhooked).

Seriously, every page is priceless - so it's hard to know what to highlight. But here are some of my favorite tidbits.

...

What is the message?

Looking at the Olympics on TV we all missed something. Cheerleaders. Yup. The Olympics had Cheerleaders. You didn't see them on TV. Wonder why. Take a look at the image on Feministing to see them, and the fans.

Guys hanging giddily over them. Yeah that is what was missing from the Olympic story. Sure we had the dreams made and broken. The athletic endeavors. The small countries showing their colors and taking glory. But we needed more scantily clad women to ogle, apparently.

Yeesch.

But this something that is continuously dealt with. Look at Comic Con this year. There is a history with the conventions for women to ogle. The booth babes. That trend is diminishing. But it exists to some extent. But it is odd how it holds on to this day around comics, where they want at times to be more family friendly, or draw in women, or be for a wider age range.


Then Marvel does a fashion show for a new line of Halloween costumes. Guess if they are for men and women, or for one sex. Yup. Something for the ladies, by which I mean something for ladies to put on and please guys. And Marvel Comics put on weird little show at Comic Con. Check out the vid and pics of the show put up by Marvel Comics.

Fans at the Marvel booth were privy to this extravagant event as they gazed upon the catwalk, where models strutted their stuff while wearing costumes inspired by Venom, Captain America, Black Cat and many more! Judging by the reaction, the fashion show hit it big with the Comic-Con attendees.

...

If you liked what you saw, than you're in luck! Look for this special new Marvel line of costumes hitting stores during Halloween 2009! Check out the video and photos below to get a taste of what's to come!

The many more are Emma Frost and Spider-Man. And yes, it is not a joke. So we have a Black Cat, a women usually played as kinky character in revealing outfits in Spider-Man. Then Emma Frost, a women usually played as a kinky...well like the last sentence, but in the X-Men. Though ironically, Frost actually looks more covered in this group then she often does in comics, but it could just be the company here. Then the rest are all male characters turned into women, like some weird fanfic. Plus, their is a female version of Captain America in the M2 universe of Marvel. And their is Spider-Girl. And the Venom could have been the Spider-Woman. So it is odd, like ladies want to dress like a male character tarted up to be a female (which means revealing flesh in the costume world). Or that guys want girlfriends to dress like Captain America...it is weird. Still, at least American Dream, Spider-Girl, and Spider-Woman were not sullied in this stunt.

Still it is sad. This is how Marvel is thinking? Sexy outfits for girls? How about ones to make the ladies out there feel...cool? I remember as a kid getting a cheap Superman costume at Halloween. I ran all around in it and lept on to the bed like I was flying. I felt a thrill. But these costumes? What is the message? Plus, no male costumes. So what is the message? It was first and foremost a Victoria Secrets show. To give the fanboys a thrill. To give them a bit more. Is this what Marvel is selling now? And is this how they see there female characters?

i09 also shared some thoughts.

Check out the flash vid from the designers, it makes it clear just what they are selling...

More charm from the evangelical pulpit

From Feministing, Hagee and the stay at home dad.

Apparently they are sinners and damned to hell for not helping and taking care of the family. I hope you notice the word NOT. Being at home, raising kids, and taking care of the house is not a useful function. Well, I guess we can imagine what the think of moms, hmm.

Yeah...great to go to church and feel that love...yeah.

Ahhhh...Sunday Heroes

PZ Myers is pointing to some funny Brit skits called Sunday heroes. There is a series so check them out on YouTube.

Here are some of them.

The Last Supper and the eucharist


The Vintage Owner and the suspect concept of heaven


Lazarus and the trouble with resurrection


Judas and the crap job




And, I don't know about you, but the Prodigal Son story has always been a really dumb story to me. It is great with the idea of last minute redemption. But it seems to suggest that you can blow off doing any good until the last minute. Really, it is like the reverse of the story of the grasshopper and the squirrel.

But these guy do a great retelling that lays out the story's logic. HILARIOUS!!!

First Night speeches

Key speeches from first night of the DNC convention.

Jim Leach


Ted Kennedy


Michelle Obama

Maddow is finally in.

After too long a wait, it looks like Rachel Maddow is finally being given her own spot in prime time cable news. As Crooks and Liars and now Olbermann are pointing out, she is going to replace Dan Abrams as the post-Olbermann host on week nights.

Hard not to be thrilled for her. She has been doing a great job on Air America for years now, and her time on MSNBC has given us all great moments of her shutting up the likes of Scarborough and Buchanan with sound arguments and hard facts. I can't wait to see what she does.

Charming arguments from the moral

Feministing looks at a new article from Peter...not Christopher...Hitchens. I learned about him thanks to a discourse between the 2 brothers (P and C are siblings) that Reasonable Doubts podcast covered. It is interesting. Chris is the godless one, more liberal on social politics and more conservative about defense and foreign policy. Peter is a very religious and moral fellow who is more a liberal on foreign policy and antiwar, but a social conservative.

I find this interesting to note as many skeptics and atheist tend to forget for long spells what an ass Chrissy is about Iraq and war in the Mid East. But, in turn, I can see many liberals and progressives loving that his own brother is less in love with his ideas. But to remind you of what you often get with social conservatives, antiwar or not...

...

Peter Hitchens (yes, they're related) writes that a rape victim that was drunk "deserves less sympathy.

Wait, it gets worse. As Melissa at Shakesville points out, Hitchens makes flat out false statements like "women who get drunk are more likely to be raped than women who do not get drunk," and that rape is "the inevitable result of the collapse of sexual morality." (You know, because rape never happened before free love, per-marital sex, feminism, etc)

...

Lovely. Rape is the outcome of the...collapse of sexual morality? What does that mean? You mean we don't live the way you tell us to and rape happens? Has this guy ever read the bible? ...Oh wait, of course he has. What an asshole.

You sir, have the moral high ground indeed.

Feministing reminds readers:

...

Hitchens can't seem to get his head around the idea that rapists rape women, rather than women magically "getting themselves" raped. There's so much more to say, but really, it's impossible to unpack all of the idiocy in this article (including the charming accompanying art above). So I'll leave that you, lovely readers, in comments.

It all just reminds you of how while the two brothers are different they have a lot in common...such as when the are wrong they manage to accomplish it while being raging asses.

Family trait?

Goin's to the conference

Rosenhouse, of EVOLUTIONblog, was kind enough to go to this years Conference on Creationism so you didn't have to.

Usually I write these accounts in strict chronological order. I will break from that tradition this time since one of my most interesting experiences at the conference came right near the end. I had made a pest of myself during several of the Q and A's after the talks, meaning that by the third day of the conference I had a bit of a reputation. Late in the day a pleasant enough fellow approached me in the bookstore, and we had a conversation.

...

BIRTH CONTROL

Another snarky infomania is out.

Best of all that means more Sarah Haskins, and birth control.

Piling on the last post

If that last post doesn't worry you, I am sure you will be cool with this.

McCain on making the cities of the US safer.

Crooks and Liars: (w/ audio)

Today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) spoke to the National Urban League, a group “devoted to empowering African Americans to enter the economic and social mainstream.” When an audience member asked him how he planned to reduce urban crime, McCain praised Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s efforts in New York Cirty before invoking the military’s tactics in Iraq as the model for crime-fighting:

MCCAIN: And some of those tactics - you mention the war in Iraq - are like that we use in the military. You go into neighborhoods, you clamp down, you provide a secure environment for the people that live there, and you make sure that the known criminals are kept under control. And you provide them with a stable environment and then they cooperate with law enforcement, etc, etc.

...

Now, beyond the so so results this has given in Iraq, or the fact crime has not been ended in places like Baghdad...doesn't this smack uncomfortably close to a...police state?

Privacy? What's that? And who will be doing this? Will it be national guard, the army, or the police? And seeing as McCain is planning to severely slash spending, taxes, and government involvement, who is going to be paying for this? Or will this go on the same magic credit card the Iraq War is on currently?

You don't need this computer, right?

I heard about this months ago, and was worried. Hearing about it again makes me all the more perturbed.

PZ Myers:

As someone who takes his laptop everywhere, this is chilling news about the ongoing erosion of our rights:

Federal agents may take a traveler's laptop computer or other electronic device to an off-site location for an unspecified period of time without any suspicion of wrongdoing, as part of border search policies the Department of Homeland Security recently disclosed.

Also, officials may share copies of the laptop's contents with other agencies and private entities for language translation, data decryption or other reasons, according to the policies, dated July 16 and issued by two DHS agencies, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

...

Not to worry though. We are told this WILL NOT affect your privacy. And the government, especially this one, telling me that just makes me feel...all the worse.

What is this? They can just take my computer from me? Just for the heck of it? How is this right? How about they do a better job at surveillance, intel work, and law enforcement. And not just set up laws to allow them to randomly grab private property, just in case, or tap every phone, just in case.

Now, most of us are not involved in crime, that we know of. But why are we asked to surrender or personal property like this? At what point does this invasion of privacy not okay? Dogs sniffing, X-raying, open bags, no shoes, where is the line? At what point is too much being asked for us to function comfortably as a society. I was a little weirded when they started check laptop for any substances on them. But I let it slide, as long as I can see the computer and know it is safe, like I do when I place my wallet and bag on the belt.

And now they want to just up and walk off with the laptop, if they feel the need. How long 'til someone takes advantage of this policy for a quick buck?

I am just wondering how this will work in court? If you take someones computer and happen to find something criminally related (fraud, child pornography, illegal downloads, etc.) can it be acted upon, how is it different that grabbing into a persons coat, or bag, and lucking into something illicit. That is supposed to be inadmissible. So how is this going to work.


I went back to the original story at the WP. This is an issue now as the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the policy in April, so people are more aware of it now.

So, this is not new. But it is there to be used, widely. With the Drug War it has a use, with the War on Terror added uses. This ridiculous policy is just so wide open it is just a way to ignore the law on a whim...which defeats the point of drafting LAW! Ahem.

And while it is a not new policy it is getting used more and more. Again, a reason to not leave crap policy in the books to be abused.

Civil liberties and business travel groups have pressed the government to disclose its procedures as an increasing number of international travelers have reported that their laptops, cellphones and other digital devices had been taken -- for months, in at least one case -- and their contents examined.

So if a company is a threat to US business, grab one of their computers. If a political party or group is causing a given White House trouble, take their cellphones or blackberries and go through them. How are Republicans okay with this? Oh, right. They are in power. And civil liberties are not a big deal...yet.

And to close let us not forget how wide this policy is in materials that can be seized.

The policies cover "any device capable of storing information in digital or analog form," including hard drives, flash drives, cellphones, iPods, pagers, beepers, and video and audio tapes. They also cover "all papers and other written documentation," including books, pamphlets and "written materials commonly referred to as 'pocket trash' or 'pocket litter.' "

May I remind you the current government is spying on Quakers as a potential threat. How comfortable are you to go to an airport?

Trouble on the Net

I was worried yesterday when many of the sites I went to wouldn't work. Messed up my research. But the answer is out know to why.

PZ Myers:

I've been getting a volley of complaints that Pharyngula is crashing Internet Explorer. It turns out that this is a problem all over the web, and is Sitemeter's fault. I've changed the code in a way that I hope will fix it — let me know if it doesn't. (←cunning ploy there…if you're still crashing, you may not be able to read that!)

...

He also mentions you should use Firefox. But not everyone cares for Firefox, Safari, or Opera. So, nyah.

Keeping on with CNN

Well, the show ended, and it shows the devote and devoted believers in DL worshipping and fighting on. Poor job, just an hour of Free Tibet.

And now Larry King is on now, which means its time to dumb down for the night. They had on the Ufologist to bash scientist, the psychics to sell their ware, and tonight right off the bat clips from What the Bleep Do We Know? I smell a crappy hour of TV.

But Larry has been clear in the past. He isn't in it for the journalism, the truth, or facts. He's in it for the flash, sound, and entertainment. Oh, I forgot a few weeks ago when he had the vaccine deniers on to crap on science and medicine.

Larry? You suck.

Just saying.

On Tibet

CNN is doing a show now on Buddhist Holy Warriors.

I am interested to see what they talk about. So far they have a very friendly view of Buddhist and the Dalai Lama. They do point to the fact that Tibet was under Chinese control for ages and had some autonomy for a number of decades after the Chinese cultural revolution,while the new Chinese governments interest were elsewhere. I do like that they are going further than most coverage goes, where the Chinese domination back into the dynastic days is glossed over. But Amanpour, who I deeply respect, seems to have a soft spot for the DL. But most people seem to. They don't talk at all about how the Tibetan government worked, the treatment of people, the abuses, the punishments of troublemakers, etc. Though when asked if he is a reincarnated figure he seems to say he no, or rather that he is first a human and second a monk. It seems like an answer that could leave leeway when with another audience. He also says he is willing for stay under China, but that Tibet should have autonomous rule under them. What that means is unclear, a government of the people or of the monks? And in talking about donations given, they note most is given away to the poor. Most, what percent? I would like to see the books, just out of curiosity.

The Buddhist group shown as more aggressively opposing China seems to find DL naive. They don't like the Chinese in Tibet. They also seem to think that they were free before. And they believe armed conflict is acceptable to free their lands. No matter what the tenets are. I have wonder what they would think if the monk ruling system also returned? Would they fight then to?

The show has a strange view about Buddhist and violence. The show wants us, or assumes, we will be shocked that a Buddhist worshipper might pick up a weapon and kill another. Have fun with this. How long does it take you to look up a general, soldier, or dictator (the DL doesn't count for this) that also happens to be Buddhist. What's more they seem focused on Buddhist warriors who fight for freedom and democracy, not the ones fighting to take land, money, power, etc.

Perhaps as the show goes on they will show the other side, but it seems they are embracing the classic view. Like the stereotypes of the British. Where they are either in bowler hats with umbrellas or have spiked pink hair and piercings. I am a little disappointed. But I will watch the rest and see if they cover more.

I do have some sympathy for the DL. He comes from a line of despot rulers, who held people as serfs. But he has been without a kingdom, and not as isolated as his predecessors. He has seen the world, seen new things, and new ideas. To say the least, he has been given a chance at a more rounded world view. So I hate to hold the whole history of cruelty he is a part of on him in total. He is a part, a leader, and a proponent of a broken system. But he seems smart enough to, maybe change things. Trouble is that I don't see him bothering to. Nor is he coming out, that I have seen, to change some of his outdated stance, like denouncing homosexuals. He has the opportunity and time to prove his critics wrong. Let's see him rise above earlier DL's and impress us.