Even his handwriting is Godlike
Bookworm on May 20 2008 at 11:01 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
Here is pseudoscience — graphology — at work in the service of Obama:
Hillary Clinton is smart and forceful, John McCain is proud but has a volatile temper, and Barack Obama is a diplomat who deals well with different people and situations.
Email This Post To A Friend
12 Responses to “Even his handwriting is Godlike”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I can’t wait until the comparative phrenology reports come out.
It reminds me of O’Reily’s ridiculous body language reader frequently appearing on Fox.
Couldn’t pass this one up…
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/accused-gitmo-spy-is-now-obama-delegate
So on this posting we’re not anti-pseudo-science, just anti-Obama…
Suek, are we not innocent until proven guilty in this country? And if he is indeed innocent, would it surprise you that he would favor the candidate that seeks to uphold Constitutional protections against the one who supports Bush in his disregard of them? I don’t know the real culpability of this would-be defendant, but the government’s reason for not prosecuting (fear of releasing classified info) seems suspect to me. I believe that the military can charge and try him without releasing evidence, since military courts have different procedural rules than civilian courts (ME505). Heck, there are even procedures to employ classified information in a civilian case (Classified Information Procedures Act). BTW, given that Wikipedia is a publicly written and edited website–you can edit that posting you read if you’d like–then how is it left-leaning? Is it that the average American is left-leaning relative to your views?
And if he is indeed innocent, would it surprise you that he would favor the candidate that seeks to uphold Constitutional protections against the one who supports Bush in his disregard of them?
The fact that you have condemned Bush for not upholding Constitutional protections simply because of personal prejudice and bias, in the absence of any evidence, pretty much answers this question.
Suek, are we not innocent until proven guilty in this country?
It reminds me of O’Reily’s ridiculous body language reader frequently appearing on Fox.
How many prejudiced opinions do you have?
Y, it is not a prejudiced opinion to denounce body language readers, unless you can show me one shred of scientific evidence that supports it. We use polygraphs for a reason–they’re more reliable than those quacks that O’Reilly trots out–and even the polygraphs are not close to 100% accurate.
As for Bush, it is not me alone that is saying that his policies have trampled the Constitution. The right-leaning Supreme Court ruled that way on several occasions (e.g., torture memo, Guantanamo tribunals, environmental actions, etc.). And they, not you and I, are the final arbiter on what is constitutional.
This was interesting…!
http://goatsbarnyard.blogspot.com/2008/05/obamas-massive-rally.html
“As for Bush, it is not me alone that is saying that his policies have trampled the Constitution.”
Yes…there are plenty of raving lunatics on the Liberal/Left who agree with you - this and the general madness of mobs does not make you right, however. Let’s Fiske this:
“Torture memo” - are you aware of a memo by the Bush Administration that advocates torture? Please share these details with us. I am aware of a legal memo by the Bush administration that seeks to define what is and what is not “torture”. Could this be to what you refer? Please enlighten us.
Guantanamo (military) Tribunals - the Constitution applies only to U.S. citizens. I don’t believe that it makes any reference to enemy combatants and war criminals. But…you disagree, apparently. Please explain why.
“Environmental Actions” - again, I don’t remember reading that part of the Constitution that addresses environmental policy. Help me out, here, wouldya? What exactly in Bush’s environmental polices do you feel violate the constitution? Can you even enunciate what Bush’s environmental policies have done…with respect to their impact on air quality, for example?
In fact, here a challenge to you: I would venture that the overall environmental quality in the U.S. is better today than when Bush first took office. Care to rebut that with facts and figures?
As far as the paranoid “trampled Constitution” ravings of your fellow travelers, I wouldn’t know how to address that except to suggest that, until that day arrives that those men-in-black come a-knocking, serious counseling and medication might be in order.
Echeccone, if you want to criticize the Bush Administration’s policies, by all means have at it. I might even join in at times. However, you discredit your position when you make sweeping, unverified statements liked “Bush is trampling the Consitution” that sound as if you are simply mouthing MoveOn.org dogma. Moreover, we know from your postings here that you can articulate your positions very well and in ways that do credit to you.
Y…
You’re more patient than I…
Danny, I’m surprised at you. Do you think I would make unsubstantiated statements on purpose? And these are easy to check. I mean, it’s not hard to look up the Supreme Court cases that have overruled Bush’s policies. On the military tribunals and environmental issues, maybe the following news clips will jar your memory:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13592908/
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/4/2/91112/94158
On the torture memo, John Yoo wrote the infamous memos, basing it on a novel theory (unitary power of the executive) that effectively puts the President above the law. This interpretation has not been contemplated much less endorsed by the vast majority of Constitutional scholars, as far as I can tell. But you can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#Legal_opinions_in_the_War_on_Terror
Note that Mr. Yoo also helped clear the way for what appear to be clear violations of the 4th amendment, which I neglected to mention earlier.
And here’s an interesting piece on the more general pattern of behavior of the executive branch putting itself above the legislative branch in (what I believe to be, but still must be tested in the courts as a) violation of Constitutional separation of powers:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
You can take issue with the “sweeping” nature of the word “trampling”–I prefer the adjective colorful–but the statements are hardly unverified. A big problem, it seems to me, is that the very conservatives who criticize big government on spending issues are hypocritically silent on its encroachment into our constitutional rights. If the government needs to adjust those rights to accommodate the war on terror, then there are processes for doing so. Secret meetings to establish unconstitutional military tribunals, to spy on Americans on US soil or to put the executive branch above Congress are not among those processes. There are very tough questions to ask about the proper balance of government power and civil rights post-9/11, but one thing is clear: the Bush administration has pushed the Constitutional envelope more than any President since Nixon and maybe even Lincoln. Some of that is certainly required, given the war on terror, but much of it was unnecessary and a function of its inclination towards secrecy and Executive exceptionalism.
And whether our air quality is better today than before Bush, sadly, has nothing to do with Constitutional balances of power. BTW, I believe that it’s a little unfair to ask me to rebut your unsupported claims on air quality. Tell you what: so I’m not the only one actually trying to bring evidence to bear on these discussions, maybe you could provide the environmental data, as well as proof that the collection standards have not changed (b/c I believe that the former head of the EPA left in part because she claimed that they had been), and then I can decide whether to rebut the data you’ve provided. You know how much I love empirical data, so you know that would make me happy.
Echeccone - the Boston Globe article to which you linked is just awful in its generalities. Basically, it says that Bush doesn’t feel obligated to follow congressional dictats that the executive branch judges to be unconstitutional. In fact, I would love to get DQ and Bookworm’s takes on it. It is replete with vague references to Bush asserting what he believes is the Executive Branch’s constitutional authority- well, that’s what the Executive Branch is supposed to do. Just because Congress makes a law doesn’t make it constitutional. If the legislative and executive branches disagree, that’s what the Supreme Court is there to resolve. The wire-tapping proposals are a good case in point- they never had anything to do with domestic wiretapping, only international communications that were routed electronically through the U.S. (satellite communications, for example). You would never know that if you used MSNBC as a news source, however. Point is, let the courts work it out. Chill out, Echeccone, you don’t live in anything remotely resembling a police state. If you disagree, you need to get out into the world more.
As far as the Bush administration “pushing the legal envelop more than any President since Nixon and maybe even Lincoln (I note they are Republicans), that’s nonsense. What exactly were the constitutional issues pertaining to Nixon and Lincoln? For historical perspective, you might want to brush up on Woodrow Wilson (Sedition Act, forced sterilizations, government informer networks) or FDR (concentration camps, the Blue Star program, IRS blackmail, the Tuskagee syphilis experiments).
As far as environmental issues…I will need to leave that for another post. I’m tapped-out for now.
Y, it is not a prejudiced opinion to denounce body language readers, unless you can show me one shred of scientific evidence that supports it.
So any ignorant person, you included, can simply reject proposals because they are ignorant about the “scientific evidence” that supports those proposals?
Very nice logic loophole.
As for Bush, it is not me alone that is saying that his policies have trampled the Constitution.
You’re just the messenger, I suppose, just like the suicide bomber isn’t the guy that determines policy, he just carries out the reactions to American foreign policy.
The right-leaning Supreme Court ruled
So like most partisan Leftists and Statists, when conservatives do something you like, you take credit for it, and when they do something you don’t like, you want them to meet your expectations. Except it’s not your expectations, it’s somebody else saying things about Bush.
And they, not you and I, are the final arbiter on what is constitutional.
Great work destroying the Constitution, since Supreme Court judges were never given the power to decide what is constitutional. That power was given to the Executive Branch to enforce and the Legislative branch to adjust. All the Supreme Court was given the power to do was to set roadblocks in the face of Congress and the President in case the Court thought something was not up to their standards.
By relegating power to one branch of government alone, you have entirely unbalanced the American Constitutional system, EC. Amazing work in such a short time.
s that the very conservatives who criticize big government on spending issues are hypocritically silent on its encroachment into our constitutional rights.
Conservatives are not here to be your sock puppets in order to support things you have made up for yourself.
Just because Congress makes a law doesn’t make it constitutional.
EC’s views of the US Constitution is entirely unConstitutional.
The Executive Branch has the power to enforce SC edicts and Legislative feats. The Legislative has the power to put into law things derived from bills and votes. The Supreme Court has the power to refuse to give its support to either the Legislative or the Executive, via rubber stamping their actions with the word “Constitutional”.
Even if both the Congress and the SC ruled that Bush was violating Constitutional rights, they would not have the power to make him stop, they could only have the power to impeach Bush or strip his efforts of funding. The Supreme Court is the weakest branch on purpose, yet now it is one of the strongest or at least one of the most decisive.
It’s fine if EC thinks Bush took his ball and went home with it, but that’s no reason to justify EC’s unConstitutional policies as somehow the fault of Bush “trampling” on the Constitution.