Our Delight in Destruction
2 hours ago
can’t verify, of course… (2+ / 0-)As Mediaite points out, this comment doesn't make much sense: "From whence is Olbermann supposed to be poaching these viewers who want to see him tear the President apart?" Hannity?
but a friend in the news biz tells me he got a damaging e-mail from one of his pals at NBC. something to the effect that their anger was pre-planned because “beating up on the President has been good for ratings.”
I haven’t checked but I’m hearing that Olbermann slammed the speech on Twitter before it even started.
"Can't verify"... "haven't checked"...It can't be verified because it's nonsense, and it wasn't checked because nobody bothered. Unfortunately there's been a lot of this here lately.Olbermann added:
And what's more, I didn't "slam" the speech on Twitter before it even started.
You don't agree with me, fine. You don't want to watch because you don't agree with me, fine. But to accuse me, after five years of risking what I have to present the truth as I see it, of staging something for effect, is deeply offensive to me and is an indication of what has happened here.Now, why am I writing about this?
The marriage between Keith Olbermann and Daily Kos is a valuable one, though, far too valuable to throw away so easily. Neither of them really “needs” the other, but they are definitely better off together than apart. I don’t think this separation will last long.It appears that Christopher was right.
I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday. I think it is a tragedy in the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown -- in this case a $20 billion shakedown -- with the attorney general of the United States, who is legitimately conducting a criminal investigation and has every right to do so to protect the American people, participating in what amounts to a $20 billion slush fund that's unprecedented in our nation's history, which has no legal standing, which I think sets a terrible precedent for our nation's future. I'm only speaking for myself. I'm not speaking for anyone else, but I apologize. I do not want to live in a county where anytime a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong, [it is] subject to some sort of political pressure that, again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown.So what we have here is an American Congressman apologizing to BP rather than the other way around. The absurdity of this is mind-boggling.
I don't want to, nor does anybody want to pile on the president, but what people need right now is leadership. And this speech just did not demonstrate that there is a plan to help the people right now who need it most. . . . We've got a real environmental catastrophe right now, and there is no demonstrative thing to point to where this president says, "We've got a plan. We're going to get it done."When reminded about the escrow account, Cantor said:
What we did not hear last night . . . is a fix to the problem. . . . Why isn't the president calling our allies, calling sources that he's got to go in and bring the necessary equipment in place to do everything we can to stave off this environmental disaster of epic proportions?Well, which is it, then? Is the president obligated to take greater control of this thing as Cantor suggests, or would that be wrong, as Price claims? Whatever he does, the Republicans aren't going to like it. There is no way for Obama to win, because it is so important to Republicans that they themselves win in November.
What are the odds that Obama's huge success yesterday in getting BP to pledge a cool $20 billion to recompense the "small people" in the Gulf will get the same attention as his allegedly dismal speech on Tuesday night? If you take Memeorandum as an indicator, it really is no contest. The speech is still being dissected by language experts, but the $20 billion that is the front page news in the NYT today? Barely anywhere on the blogs.
This is just a glimpse into the distortion inherent in our current political and media culture. It's way easier to comment on a speech - his hands were moving too much! - than to note the truly substantive victory, apparently personally nailed down by Obama, in the White House yesterday. If leftwing populism in America were anything like as potent as right-wing populism - Matt Bai has a superb analysis of this in the NYT today - there would be cheering in the streets. But there's nada, but more leftist utopianism and outrage on MSNBC. And since there's no end to this spill without relief wells, this is about as much as Obama can do, short of monitoring clean-up efforts, or rather ongoing management of the ecological nightmare of an unstopped and unstoppable wound in the ocean floor.Read the rest here.
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c|
|Harry G. Frankfurt|
For most people, the fact that a statement is false constitutes in itself a reason, however weak and easily overridden, not to make the statement. For Saint Augustine's pure liar it is, on the contrary, a reason in favor of making it. For the bullshitter it is in itself neither a reason in favor nor a reason against. Both in lying and in telling the truth people are guided by their beliefs concerning the way things are. These guide them as they endeavor either to describe the world correctly or to describe it deceitfully. For this reason, telling lies does not tend to unfit a person for telling the truth in the same way that bullshitting tends to. Through excessive indulgence in the latter activity, which involves making assertions without paying attention to anything except what it suits one to say, a person's normal habit of attending to the ways things are may become attenuated or lost. Someone who lies and someone who tells the truth are playing on opposite sides, so to speak, in the same game. Each responds to the facts as he understands them, although the response of the one is guided by the authority of the truth, while the response of the other defies that authority and refuses to meet its demands. The bullshitter ignores these demands altogether. He does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are. —Harry G. Frankfurt, On Bullshit (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2005), pp. 59–61.
Clearly, the president’s number one priority in making this speech was to make the case for his high tax, command and control, lifestyle changing, carbon regulating energy plan.So, what's wrong with Impomeni's analysis?
Moreover, Obama placed his 863 words on “green energy” at the end of his address. In so doing, the president orgnized the speech on the principles of inductive logic - in which the bad news comes first in order to soften the impact of the proposed solution. Everything which comes before his pitch for “green energy” is properly seen, then, as support for Obama’s proposal. The crisis, the impact, the lives of those affected, all props in Obama’s drive to remake the nation’s energy policy.
Last night, Obama revealed himself to be nothing more than a snake-oil salesman. He knows that the public does not want his energy-limiting scheme, but he is determined to force it on America using the worst environmental tragedy in the nation’s history as the hook. Never let a crisis go to waste.
An inductive logic is a system of reasoning that extends deductive logic to less-than-certain inferences. In a valid deductive argument the premises logically entail the conclusion, where such entailment means that the truth of the premises provides a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion. Similarly, in a good inductive argument the premises should provide some degree of support for the conclusion, where such support means that the truth of the premises indicates with some degree of strength that the conclusion is true.What we currently know about the catastrophe in the Gulf may provide an inductive argument for the need to shift to green energy. (Is there something wrong with presenting inductive arguments?) But softening the impact of the solution to a problem by presenting it after bad news about the problem is not a legitimate means of argumentative support: it is an emotional means of persuasion and is therefore fallacious. When Impomeni describes this means of persuasion as being in agreement with an inductive principle of logic, then, he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about.
Despite the growing damage from the Gulf oil leak, the public generally favors continuing to drill for oil and gas in U.S. waters. And in setting priorities for energy legislation in Congress, fully 68% favor expanding exploration and development of coal, oil and gas in the United States.That doesn't exactly square with Impomeni's claim.
Yet there also is broad support for limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. And as an overall goal for U.S. energy policy, 56% say it is more important to protect the environment, while 37% say it is more important to keep energy prices low.
Yes, I think in the Haiti earthquake, ladies and gentlemen -- in the words of Rahm Emanuel -- we have another crisis simply too good to waste. This will play right into Obama's hands. He's humanitarian, compassionate. They'll use this to burnish their, shall we say, "credibility" with the black community -- in the both light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country. It's made-to-order for them. That's why he couldn't wait to get out there, could not wait to get out there.As I've said, this is an example of the Republican strategy I mentioned earlier. If Obama responds to the earthquake, it's because he's evil, and if he does not respond to the earthquake, it's because he's evil. No matter what, then, Obama is evil.
She creates the situation she wants to gripe about. It's intentional. It's a way of appearing faux "feminist" while also displaying the wares that got every golddigger in history a sugardaddy. It's a way of controlling her product messaging.Read the rest here. It's so worth it.
It is pretty simple. Humanity itself is simplistic at it’s [sic] very core. But we, in our “enlightened” states, now tend to try to over-think and rationalize all, instead of just embracing gut instincts and our hearts. We’ll create massive bureaucracies, full of “experts” to solve every little possible problem. Mr. Ritchie knows the basic truth: You gotta try and save them. It’s pretty simple.This sounds wonderful, I admit, and it plainly works in Ritchie's situation. But we can't rely on "embracing gut instincts and our hearts" alone, because it ain't sufficient. Consider the following situation:
A doctor who believed that abortion was wrong, even in order to save the mother's life, might nevertheless consistently believe that it would be permissible to perform a hysterectomy on a pregnant woman with [uterine] cancer. In carrying out the hysterectomy, the doctor would aim to save the woman's life while merely foreseeing the death of the fetus. Performing an abortion, by contrast, would involve intending to kill the fetus as a means to saving the mother.Notice that the edict, "You gotta try and save them" isn't very helpful in this situation. If a hysterectomy is performed, the woman will live but the fetus will die; if a hysterectomy is not performed, the fetus may live and the woman may die.
|The Colbert Report||Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c|
|The Word - Truthiness|
The leftist agenda, which is the femisogynist agenda, is harmful to all – men and women – but has been particularly harmful to women in one aspect. The pushing of the abortion agenda has done more to harm women and motherhood than anything in recent history. The entire pro-abortion movement has demeaned women by diminishing motherhood to the point that it is considered a punishment and a detriment and that a life itself can be an expendable inconvenience.I have addressed a few of these points in several previous posts. But I would like to address one point here. Ziganto appears to believe (incorrectly) that feminists promote abortion without informing women of the risks. Ziganto can insist on the reality of post-abortion syndrome all she wants, but it simply does not exist, any more than post-cataract surgery syndrome exists, or post-appendectomy syndrome exists, as I have previously argued. Anyway, I would simply point out here that it is actually conservatives who are guilty of deceiving and manipulating women and using "Big Daddy government" to save women (from non-existent threats). So, for example, a law recently passed by Republican majorities in Oklahoma "requires women to undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before getting an abortion," according to the New York Times. Not only that, a second law "prevents women who have had a disabled baby from suing a doctor for withholding information about birth defects while the child was in the womb." What this means is this: if a doctor believes that a woman might abort if she is informed that her fetus has this or that defect, it is legal for the doctor to lie about that defect (by omission or otherwise), and the woman has no legal recourse. (So much for the importance of trust in the doctor-patient relationship.) Now, I ask you: who is treating women as if they are children or cattle? Ziganto says that she believes in small government, but that is a lie. (I'm in favor of big government, but at least I'm honest about it.) Ziganto would have the government in the examination room with you and your doctor, making decisions about your medical care for you, because neither your nor your doctor are competent to make medical and philosophical decisions on your own.
There is no need to constantly bring up gender as if that is why [female politicians] should win. Conservative women know that. They don’t rely on their gender to somehow protect them nor to get them ahead. They are, you know, grown-ups. They rely on themselves and on the love and support of their families and friends, not the government.(Notice Ziganto's implication that liberal women rely on their gender to get ahead or win elections. That's another sweeping generalization that will go unchallenged by her readers.) Ziganto also asserts, without argument, that women "already are equal to men," but different. Given the ambiguity of "equal," this assertion can mean a lot of different things. So it's not clear what Ziganto is saying. (Ziganto's slippery use of the language makes her meaning often hard to pin down. I believe that is intentional, for it makes it easier for her to respond to criticisms of her posts.) But it is abundantly clear that men and women are not equal in the sense that men still operate at an advantage in our society politically, economically, and socially. Any person of average intelligence with an internet connection can find non-biased sources which confirm that this is true. So while Ziganto might not want to talk about sexism and may prefer to talk about the advantages of making herself subordinate and vulnerable to the men in her life, the rest of us would like to have a grown-up conversation about this serious problem in our society. Things might be peachy at the Ziganto household, but if she thinks that the same can be said for women everywhere, she's delusional.
They didn’t win because they are women. They won for the people that they are and for the real world experience that they bring. In Whitman’s, Fiorina’s and Haley’s cases, for instance, they have actually, you know, made a payroll as opposed to living off the public sector their whole lives. Having run businesses themselves, they understand how they work, in practice and not just in theory.
However, I don’t think any woman must like them just because they are women. That plays right into old school identity politics and we need to be done with that.Ziganto is annoyed that "the traditional media" is ignoring the power of Palin's endorsements and rather focusing on the question whether Palin has breast implants. Consider the photographic evidence provided by Wonkette:
It’s what they always do to conservative women, especially ones who have strong political pull and to whom people listen. They attempt to diminish them and turn them into a caricature of some airhead bimbo. You can spot the leftist bias regarding Sarah Palin usually within a first sentence or two of an article: “former beauty queen” will be used. The AP even referred to her as “a telegenic conservative” when she was first picked as McCain’s running mate. Get it? He picked her because she’s pretty!Now, what's wrong with Ziganto's post?
Ridiculous implications like that and like this new “story” disguised as mere curiosity are fully intended to not only ridicule, but to demean and diminish Sarah Palin as a person. To turn her into a caricature and a non-entity. It is an attempt to say “Those primary wins? Nothing to see here, move along. See? You can’t take her seriously? She’s just a pretty face and a great rack!”
Shares of HP jumped 6.9 percent in heavy trading on the New York Stock Exchange Wednesday on the news. But at one point, the stock was up as much as 10.5 percent.And why imply that people in the public sector have no real-world experience? Are you daft, Ziganto? If I wanted someone in government with the relevant real-world experience, wouldn't I vote for someone with . . . experience in government? And if "living off of the public sector" is so bad, why would I want to vote for anyone like Haley or Fiorina who obviously wants to live off of the public sector? Shouldn't I vote against them?
"The stock is up a bit on the fact that nobody liked Carly's leadership all that much," said Robert Cihra, an analyst with Fulcrum Global Partners. "The Street had lost all faith in her and the market's hope is that anyone will be better."
The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.From Conservapedia:
Demonization is when a demagogue, or group of demagogues, paints their ideological enemies or scapegoats in terms intended to render them as irredeemably evil and fit only for destruction, which is usually presented as 'self-defense'. Possibly the best-known example of demonization in the 20th century was the Nazis' demonization of Jews, which played off of existing antisemitism for political gain and eventually led to the Holocaust. . . . [emphasis mine]From Michelle Malkin, "Thank you, Keep America Safe":
A reviewer of Barbara Olson's, Hell to Pay : The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton Regnery Publishing (1999) wrote,
Olson discusses the Clintons' method of dealing with enemies, which is straight out of the writings of left-wing crank Saul Alinsky: demonize, polarize, and destroy. Witness Ken Starr, Newt Gingrich, Paula Jones, et al. Olson, a former Senate counsel who investigated the Clinton Administration's FBI file caper and Travel Office fiasco [emphasis mine].A literal example of the politics of personal destruction from the Sual [sic]Alinsky field manual was uttered by Democratic Presidential hopeful John Edwards in 2007 about social commentator Ann Coulter. Edwards spoke of "that she-devil Ann Coulter" and in same breath said "people like Ann Coulter, they engage in hateful language."
The DOJ terror lawyers’ defenders complain that it is unfair to question their motives and loyalty. There wouldn’t have been so many questions in the first place had Eric Holder simply divulged the names when Sen. Grassley asked him to do so months ago.
The predictable cries of “McCarthyism” are rising. The demand for public disclosure is now being characterized as a “witch hunt.” Exactly as the Obama White House would have it: Demonize dissent. Freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.From The Huffington Post:
Michelle Malkin labeled Michelle Obama "First Crony" on Monday, saying she was complicit in corruption reminiscent of the Clinton years and Watergate. According to Malkin, Michelle Obama's involvement is one of the "underplayed angles" of this story. She referred specifically to AmeriCorps Inspector General firing. (The AmeriCorps board has said that they, not the White House, initiated the dismissal.)From Eric Alterman, What Liberal Media?:
The greater [Ann] Coulter's fame, the more malevolent grew her hysteria. In her 1998 book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton, she wrote, "In this recurring nightmare of a presidency, we have a national debate about whether he 'did it,' even though all sentient people know he did. Otherwise there would be debates only about whether to impeach or assassinate."From Glenn Beck on Fox "News":
At a meeting of the National Political Action Conference, speaking of the young American who converted to militant Islam and fought for the Taliban, Coulter advised, "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed to. Otherwise they will turn out to be outright traitors."
Progressives were lurking like a virus, waiting for their chance to suck all of the blood out of the Democratic neck. They were looking for the opening to infect the system. And once they were inside that system, I warned in 2004, the Democrats -- it will be a battle to the end of your party to get them out.
... What we are talking about is an ideological movement that has set its sights on the destruction of the Constitution and the fundamental transformation of our Republic. It is called the progressive movement, and it has been using both parties for a long, long time.
But mainly, it's the Democratic Party that has played host to it. And this parasite has been feeding on that host.From Glenn Beck's CPAC Address, 20 February 2010:
Progressivism is the cancer in America and it is eating our Constitution.From Erick Erickson's Twitter feed:
The nation loses the only goat fucking child molester to ever serve on the Supreme Court in David Souter's retirement.From Balkinization:
Liz Cheney and her group "Keep America Safe" is after the lawyers who work for the government but (her ad disgustingly insinuates) are secret sympathizers with Al Qaeda. "Whose values do they share?" appears in bold white letters across the black screen, as the voiceover intones the same words against a background of ominous music. The slanders against government lawyers who represented detainees is an uncanny repetition of Senator Joseph McCarthy's hunt for Communists in government 60 years ago. In one of the most dramatic moments, McCarthy went after a lawyer.From The Rush Limbaugh Show:
"Limbaugh likens Democrats to murderers, rapists, and 'this Muslim guy' that 'offed his wife's head.'"From Hardball Rep. Michelle Bachmann's appearance on MSNBC's in 2008:
I'm focusing on Barack Obama and the people he's been associated with and I'm very worried about their anti-American nature. . . . I would say, what I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look -- I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America? I think the people would love to see an expose like that.From Lori Ziganto, "Obama Administration and Democrats Kowtow to Other Countries . . ."
But the current crop of Democrats have taken it to new lows; they are past rock bottom and are now frantically burrowing through the Earth’s crust. Since attaining power, everything they’ve done has been an attempt to fundamentally change our “defective” Constitution and country. They are trying to create a federal government involved in and in control of every aspect of our lives, even the foods we eat. They have attempted and continue to attempt to morally equate America with those who wish to kill us . They have actively tried to weaken our military and are attempting to further their belief that America is not special.You get the idea.
In the past week, the Obama administration and fellow Democrats have let their true feelings for America known more than ever before. Well, at least more blatantly. They aren’t even bothering to hide it now and have lost all shame. No longer content with merely worshipping at the altar of multiculturalism, they are now going out of their way to boast that they believe that practically any other country is actually superior to America, and that the men and women who have died fighting for our country aren’t worthy of honor and respect.Now, Ziganto's readers will accept all of the claims in this paragraph, but only if they already believe, as Ziganto does, that Obama is made of concentrated evil. You cannot infer from the mere fact that Obama was not at Arlington Cemetery on Memorial Day that Obama doesn't honor and respect the troops. President Obama did participate in the wreath-laying ceremony at Arlington on Memorial Day of last year, I guess because he hates the United States and the troops. Obama was in a national cemetery in Illinois this year for Memorial Day, obviously because he hates the troops. (My father is buried in a national cemetery, and I don't see anything wrong with choosing a national cemetery as a venue to honor our fallen soldiers.) And, as it turns out, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush all hate the troops, since they also missed wreath-laying ceremonies at Arlington.
I am a staunch Anti-Feminist. Seriously, mowing the lawn is almost as bad as changing your own car tire. Which is utterly unheard of in my mind. Far easier, and more womanly to use your wiles. Work up a good fake cry, pout prettily and watch while a man does the job. Who needs ya, Gloria Steinem? Not I and that is for damn certain.If you object to Obama's presidency on the grounds that he's not manly enough for the job, then how could you support a woman's candidacy for public office and yet require of women that they not be manly?
David Nesenoff: Any comments on Israel?Thomas later apologized for the remarks. According to this Associated Press story, however,
Helen Thomas: Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine. Remember, these people are occupied, and it's their land.
Nesenoff: So, where should they go? What should they do?
Thomas: Go home.
Nesenoff: Where's home?
Thomas: Poland, Germany, and America, and everywhere else. Why push people out of there who [have] lived there for centuries?
The national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham H. Foxman, said Sunday that Thomas' apology didn't go far enough.The fallout didn't end there. According to Fox "News," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Thomas's remarks were "offensive and reprehensible." George W. Bush's press secretaries also weighed in. Dana Perino said Thomas's remarks were "so offensive to so many, so personally hurtful." Ari Fleischer said that Thomas's remarks amount to "religious cleansing."
"Her suggestion that Israelis should go back to Poland and Germany is bigoted and shows a profound ignorance of history," Foxman said in a statement. "We believe Thomas needs to make a more forceful and sincere apology for the pain her remarks have caused."
FGM refers to a variety of traditional rite-of-passage practices, widespread in parts of Africa, Asia and the Middle East, that involve the nicking, cutting or removal of parts of female genitals for reasons both non-medical and mythical (e.g., to make a woman "clean" and "reduce" her libido). Health consequences include severe pain and bleeding, hemorrhaging, chronic infection, infertility, painful intercourse, post-traumatic stress, pregnancy complications possibly fatal to the baby, and death of the victim herself.Obviously, FGM harms its victims and is on those grounds obviously morally wrong. And one obviously cannot morally justify the practice by claiming that it is an essential part of one's culture. One could just as easily argue that slavery in the American South was justified as an essential part of Southern culture.
Female genital mutilation . . . has been a federal crime since 1996, but we know it happens here, with an estimated 228,000 American girls having undergone or being at risk of the procedure. If the doctor doesn't do it -- or do something -- someone else probably will, either here or in Somalia, as untold numbers of girls are also sent to their home countries for the procedure. (This, too, may soon become a federal crime).As Ziganto reports, the American Academy of Pediatrics recently revised an earlier policy that unequivocally condemned FGM to permit nicking. (And, as Zigano reports, the AAP reversed itself in the ensuing uproar.) Unfortunately, Ziganto misleadingly suggested that a relativist multiculturalism was responsible for the AAP's more permissive attitude toward FGM:
So what if a U.S. doctor -- while refusing to perform any other or more invasive sort of genital cutting -- were authorized to offer one option: a tiny, symbolic, non-disfiguring pinprick or "nick" on a girl's clitoral hood, under sanitary conditions and local anesthesia? What if her parents, resolved to do some form of ritual cutting, accepted this offer as an alternative? What if the doctor -- though arguably perpetuating, in principle, a cruel and misogynist tradition -- would therefore save this girl from an almost incomparably worse fate, whether on U.S. soil or abroad: perhaps a brutally invasive excision with rough tools and nothing to numb the pain, plus the possibility of serious lifelong health complications -- or death?
Would that, then, be the right thing for this doctor to do?
Last month, the American Academy of Pediatrics jumped right in as a contestant in the race to see who can be the most revolting, all in the name of multiculturalism and their misguided idea of tolerance. They released a policy update on Female Genital Mutilation, in which they first changed the term to Female Genital Cutting and, further, gave credence to the idea of allowing doctors to provide a “clitoral nick” instead.Of course, liberals are ultimately to blame, for in Ziganto's mind, to be liberal is to be tolerant, and to be tolerant is to embrace multiculturalism, and to embrace multiculturalism is to embrace metaethical moral relativism. (I have a mental image of these words on Glenn Beck's blackboard connected to each other with arrows.) While this is likely true of some persons, I am confident that a vast majority of liberals are not metaethical moral relativists. And it is quite obvious that the reasoning (if you can call it that) that Ziganto attributes to supporters of the relaxed policy doesn't look anything like the reasoning Harris mentions. Consequentialists are not necessarily metaethical moral relativists. And that consequentialist reasoning is a hell of a lot more plausible than the straw man Ziganto rants about in her post. While I am staunchly against FGM, I also believe that our moral reasoning must be sensitive to empirical reality. Ziganto is quite vocal about her pro-life views; if nicking could actually save a person's life, wouldn't we have some reason to do it? Or do we care only about the lives the unborn, Ziganto? Arriving at the correct answer in this moral dilemma isn't quite as straightforward as Ziganto would lead us to believe. Ziganto insists that the issues are quite simple: "There is no tricky territory to negotiate. Some things are black and white. Some things are right or wrong. Some things are good or evil." While this is undoubtedly true, Ziganto's insistence that we dumb this dilemma down and tell the academics in the Ivory Tower to go fuck themselves is just the opposite of what's needed here.
The last we'd heard from Knotts was last September when he accused unnamed forces behind disgraced Governor Mark Sanford of spreading rumors that Knotts' favored candidate for governor, current Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, is gay.I guess they don't take too kindly to homosexuals and Indians in the Palmetto State.
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c|
|Fox & Friends' Lingerie Football Romp|
I was taking the term feminist back, not because it’s a necessary or even a desirable term, but so that the LEFT can no longer use it and can no longer continue to use identity politics as a wedge and a way to put people in race based and gender based boxes.Regarding the meaning of that term, Ziganto writes,
Sarah Palin and the women of the GOP are “true feminists,” in the original intent of the word, yes. And the fact that the faux feminists on the Left are so up in arms about them using the term, which they have bastardized beyond recognition, attests to that fact.I wonder if any of her readers have wondered what Ziganto means by "feminism"? What is "the original intent" of that word? If "faux feminists" have "bastardized" that term "beyond recognition," then surely Ziganto knows what its original meaning was. And though I do not have encyclopedic knowledge of Ziganto's collected prose, I have read many of her feminism-related posts, and I do not recall her ever defining the term for us. So, what was the original intent of the word? I have a feeling that Ziganto will never answer that question for us, for either she actually doesn't know and only claims to, or she believes she knows but will learn that she is actually mistaken.
My point was that conservative women are strong, capable and are fed up at having faux feminists (who are actually Femisogynists) constantly claim that they speak for us as they strive to turn all women into perpetual victims, at the mercy of big strong daddy government. We are also tired of motherhood being diminished and considered a detriment instead of an attribute.Ziganto also writes:
We don’t rely on a victim mentality; we rely on ourselves and the love of our families. We don’t invent sexism with insane claims that marriage itself is sexist. We have no problem taking our husbands’ names, as we aren’t cuckoo pants and thus, realize that marriage isn’t some nefarious plot, but rather a loving bond. We want to share our name with our children, whom we don’t consider punishments.Ziganto also criticizes "faux feminists" for embracing metaethical moral relativism and with it a tolerant attitude toward the oppression and abuse of women in certain Islamic countries.
Classical liberalism or libertarianism . . . holds that women and men are self-owners capable of acquiring property rights over things. As such women and men, equally, have the right to freedom from coercive interference with their person and property. This right to freedom from coercive interference consists in, at least, rights to freedom of conscience and expression, freedom to control what happens to one's body, freedom of association, freedom to acquire, control and transfer property, freedom of contract, as well as the right to compensation when rights are violated. The state's role is, exclusively, to protect citizens from coercive interference by protecting their rights. Some reject even a limited state, however, holding that nongovernmental means of protecting rights are to be preferred.The classical liberal or libertarian feminist simply holds that classical liberalism is true. Now, the careful reader will note that this feminist view entails virtually nothing on Ziganto's ridiculous list. As a feminist myself, the only item on Ziganto's list I might endorse is (6). But think about it: why must a woman take her husband's name? Why shouldn't the man take his wife's name? The practice is obviously completely arbitrary and therefore without merit and indefensible.
Paul’s nomination could have been a moment of triumph for the Tea Party movement, as well as for Republicans, but instead it was an embarrassment. And I felt the disappointment firsthand, given that I agree with and support numerous things the Tea Party represents. Like many Americans, I’m angered by the intense spending going on under the Obama administration. But when the movement was given the opportunity to present specific solutions and answer real questions, its leaders nominated someone who—yet again—revealed weird, racist undertones, no matter how he wants to spin it.
I respect Paul’s ideological commitment to libertarianism, of which it’s quite obvious he’s a die-hard supporter, even if there are reasons there’s no real libertarian senator. And I, too, believe that the government should stay out of people’s lives as much as possible. Yet Paul seems to be taking these beliefs to an extreme, one that’s making even fellow Republicans uneasy.Why Does Paul give McCain the willies? Immediately after his primary victory, Paul did an interview with Rachel Maddow in which he seemed to indicate that the government has no right to prohibit private discrimination on the basis of race. This put him at odds with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is rather extraordinary.
Paul’s role within the Republican Party (if any) has yet to be determined. But one thing I am sure of is that, until we start nominating candidates who have more realistic views of the complex world we live in and stop seeing things strictly in black and white (no pun intended), we are going to continue losing elections and becoming punch lines for late-night talk-show hosts.So, plainly, McCain is urging the Republican Party to moderate its stances for its own good. That seems like excellent advice to me.
As always, Meghan McCain is concerned only with Meghan McCain. And being thought of as “cool” and “hip” and “edgy” so that the right people, in her mind, will like her. She has yet to learn that they only pretend to like her as long as they can use her to bash Republicans. She obviously doesn’t realize yet that is the only reason she is paid – such a depressing thought – for her alleged writing.That's right, Ziganto went straight for the ad hominem fallacy dangling in front of her mind like a carrot. Even if McCain's motivation for writing is the desire to be thought of as cool, hip, and edgy, her analysis may be perfectly sound. But there's something more interesting going on here. McCain probably doesn't give a flying fuck what Ziganto has to say about her. But surely McCain's attempt to combat the radicalization of the Republican Party has its significant detractors. David Frum was made to pay for his opposition to the epistemic closure of the Republican Party. Some would plausibly say that Frum's willingness to call out Republicans took courage. Well, then, how could Ziganto characterize McCain's willingness to challenge the radical elements of the Republican Party as anything other than courageous? How can that be the "easy route" for McCain? Her father was the Republican Party's nominee for President in 2008, for fuck's sake, and only after shedding his maverick reputation to become one of the most conservative members of the Republican Party. For Ziganto, the brave thing to do would be to simply go along with the people in charge of the Republican Party right now—the people who led the party to their Waterloo over health care reform, the epistemically closed Party of No that panders to Tea Partiers who would take the party even further to the right. That would be brave, if by "brave," we meant "cowardly."
She also has yet to learn that the “I’m so brave, I speak my own mind” line doesn’t work when one always takes the easy route and never, ever says anything actually brave. You see, Meghan, you can’t claim to be an individual nor a rebel. You have proven yourself to be a sheep — in cute shoes, yes, but a sheep nonetheless.