You know, it's funny. I've talked to juries, jury panels and judges. I've taught in law school. I've given speeches to various audiences from labor union locals to political party gatherings. I've written papers, essays and legal briefs. And never once has anyone in any of my "audiences" come up to me and said something like "Gee, Mr. Franklin, I really didn't understand what you were saying." In short, I communicate reasonably well both in writing and orally. But on Braodsheet threads and on this one, it is absolutely routine that people "respond" to what I write with total incomprehension. (It's further interesting to note that when I post to War Room or Glenn Greenwald threads, no one ever seems to misunderstand what I say.) Now why do you think that is?

I suppose it's pointless for me to ask you to actually read what I've written. What did you think I meant when I said in my original post that none of what I was saying about the tendencies of children in single-parent families necessarily applied to Louise Sloan's child and that he/she might well turn out just fine? What is it that's not clear about that to you? It's perfectly simple. It's kind of like you and your child. What I'm talking about are tendencies and increased risks. There's no way to say that any individual will suffer the consequences that generally children do. And I didn't say that, so why do you act like I did?

You say I'm talking about stereotypes. I'm not. Look up the word.

Look, if you want to discuss what I write, fine. If you want to disagree, fine. But if you just want to make stuff up, please do it about someone else's posts, OK?

I only try to communicate things I know about and this happens to be one of them. You seem to think that what I've said on this thread is common knowledge. I hope you're right, but if you are, why are so many people getting so bent out of shape about the utterly non-threatening, non-controversial things I've said?

I mean, you still don't get the simple point. You bring up Barack Obama to prove that individuals don't necessarily fit a particular general trend. Yes, damselduo, that's right. It's the same thing I've said in at least three posts so far. Maybe if I say it a few more times you'll absorb it.

Why do I doubt that?

to me the most important events in Iraq are occurring in the Kurdish north where the Kurds are attacking the Turks in Turkey and the Turks are responding. Maliki and Talibani have stated the obvious - that the Iraqi army isn't capable of providing security to the Kurds. This all comes against a backdrop of Kurds cutting deals with international oil producers to start producing oil in Kurdistan despite there being no "oil law" in Iraq. In short, it looks to me like the Kurdish north is in the process of seceding from Iraq and Iraq is incapable of preventing it.

Any reports on this?

Boston's pitching is better and their hitting is astronomically better. Colorado has better defense and a lot more speed. The Rockies are a fair team, nothing more. They were four games over .500 on September 15 when they got hot. 'Hot' carried them through the Phils and D'Backs, but you don't stay hot doing nothing for eight days. I don't look forward to Josh Fogg pitching to the Sox hitters. The Rox only chance is to get on base and steal everything in sight, but that won't cut it. Sox sweep.

when made against Republicans is that it contradicts the Rep archetype. The archetype of the Rep is that he's a tough guy with moral clarity and blah, blah, blah. Therefore, claims to the contrary slip off like Teflon. Those same claims stick like VelCro to Dems because they support the Dem archetype, which is that he's nice to poor people but not firm in his grasp of the "real world," among other things.

Reps are, according to the archetype, efficient business people, tough on security issues and crime, but liable to be callous and ignore "the little guy." So claims that support their callousness work, because they agree with the archetype. So Dems should be barking about tax cuts for the wealthy, the growing income gap, SCHIP and health care reform, etc. because they promote the preconceived notion about Reps. People are open to those concepts.

If you think about what claims stick to which candidates and which ones slide off, it's always a matter of which claims contradict archetypes and which ones don't. The Swift Boat claims worked against Kerry because, irrespective of his war exploits, he's a Dem and presumptively a wimp. Clinton passed "welfare reform" that was far more draconian than anything Reagan ever tried. Reagan was trashed for his efforts, but Clinton got a pass. Why? According to the archetype, Dems are friends of the poor and blacks and Reps are their enemies. It's an analysis that, as far as I can see, works every time.

I understand that the archetypes don't comport with factual reality, but people believe them anyway.