I won't review all the nasty things being said about Sarah Palin by people who I have already written about. I would like to say a word about the last items that have risen from the swamp in the past week. Regardless of who you are voting for, I think it would be appropriate to ask some hard questions of ourselves.
It seems someone or some company has come out with T-shirts that read, "Sarah Palin is a C--t" (referring to female genitalia with a crude word.) Is that appropriate? What if someone came out with a T-shirt reading the same about Michelle Obama-or Hillary Clinton? What would be the reaction on the left? I guarantee you, it would be much more than "that is inappropriate, and we don't approve". There would be howls of outrage on the left and in the news media. Investigations would be launched. Congress might even call for hearings and subpoena witnesses.
I understand that many Obama supporters would come back at me and say that they would never wear such an item of clothing and I should not connect them with those people, etc, etc. Fair enough, but doesn't it give you pause?
Secondly, it is now reported that some porn company is coming out with a movie featuring a Sarah Palin look-alike. Classy, huh? Can you imagine the reaction if a porn company made such a movie with a Hillary or Michelle look-alike?
Say what you will about Palin's qualifications to be running for Vice President. Say what you want about this "Troopergate controversy", which I have already written about. But when you begin attacking someone in such a profane manner, doesn't that say a lot about you? Doesn't that bring discredit to your side? (I am sure the Obama campaign has already or will shortly make a statement condemning the above actions-and I am in no way trying to connect them to these outrages.)
As a conclusion, ask yourself this question: Who do you think gets their cars keyed (deliberately scratched by someone using a key) more? Would it be people whose cars have Obama/Biden bumper stickers or those whose cars have McCain/Palin bumper stickers. Of course, no one will go out and compile the empirical evidence to prove this point, but I think all of you know the answer to the question.
Think about it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
In response to your final question, I would say it really all depends where you live. In response to this:
Of course, no one will go out and compile the empirical evidence to prove this point, but I think all of you know the answer to the question.
This is why so many conservatives are intellectually bankrupt. "We don't need evidence to know the answers! We already know the answers!" I'll stick to basing things on evidence.
Oh and how 'bout this lovely shirt?
I've got more where that came from, too, I just need to be on my home computer to find them.
Bryan,
First of all, the shirt is terrible and that biker needs a good whuppin'. Forget the lawsuits-whuppin' is what is needed.
Bryan, someday you will realize that conservative thought is based on reason and liberal thought is based on feelings.
But not now.
I thought modern conservatives hated intellectualism? If not, they've sure fooled me! What ever happened to the William F. Buckley brand of conservatism?
Bryan, someday you will realize that conservative thought is based on reason and liberal thought is based on feelings.
No offense, Gary, but you've got a funny definition of what logic is. Many of the opinions that you've expressed on this blog are based more on emotion than logic (like how you define what a "hypocrite" is - rather than actually using the real definition of the word), and you have on more than one occasion committed logical fallacies (like the ever popular strawman).
In fact, this post right here is to the brim with logical fallacies. The above statement is nothing more than an assertion, as you have offered no evidence to back it up. Your critiques of Krugman were nothing more than name-calling, as you had nothing specific on him other than to say that he badmouths people - with no thought as to whether what he says is true or not.
And of course, the concluding statement of this particular post is also nothing more than a baseless assertion. Oh, and I wonder why you assume that it's liberals who are making the Palin-porn - are you trying to say that porn doesn't sell in the red states?
And if I wanted to, I could bring up your anti-gay marriage post, where EVERY SINGLE point you made was a logical fallacy. If you want, I can name them for you.
Logic involves using evidence to come to conclusions. Sometimes you do that, but this post here is severely devoid of it. In fact, what you accuse the liberals of doing in your response to Bryan is exactly what you're doing right now. Hello, Pot - have you met the Kettle?
Dammit, Gary, you can call me a liberal, a bleeding-heart, a secularist, whatever - but I completely resent the notion that somehow I don't use logic to form my opinions. Holy crap, but if anything, I'm logical to a FAULT!
Gary, some people just bring out the worst in others. Maybe Hillary and Michelle by their demeanor demand and deserve more respect. And rightfully so. Sarah is not a lady, she is a hard woman.I still can't believe how she neglects her children, and her husband who is supposed to be a hands on dad is always standing behind her, even coaching her. Is he running for something? How can you still justify anything about them?
Lance,
Kinda hard to dodge bullets when your getting hit with a shotgun.
What I meant by my reference to conservative/liberal thought is what I said. Liberals are giverned by feelings and emotions rather than logic-unless you are talking about the abstract logic we all got in our college philosophy classes (which could never fathom). Another way of saying it that if we have a truly open exchange of ideas (the market place of ideas, if you will) we win. In colleges, we don't see the open exchange of ideas, do we? In fact, the tactic of the left is to silence the right. Nowhere is that more obvious than on a university campus.
As for the anti-Gay marriage post, pls bring them up. I'll be happy to go over them with you. But didn't we argue that before.
If I said or implied that liberals made the Palin porn flic, I meant to say that it surely was made by her opponents-or by someone who is too busy making porn flics to even know who is running for office-or to care.
Ingrid,
No matter what you think of Sarah, she doesn't deserve to have herself and family treated in that manner.
As for Hillary, I have absolutely no respect for her, but I would not stoop to do that to her-or Michelle.
How many pornos do you think have been made parodying the Clinton-Lewinsky affair? Probably countless. I don't recall hearing any outrage over that.
This isn't really anything new. The porn industry doesn't go after just one side or the other. Their market is everyone, because people on both sides of the aisle love porn, even if they won't admit it. They just care about making money and being sensationalistic. They don't care who they offend.
Bryan,
Any pornos depicting Lewinsky and Clinto were based on factual events. I'll let it go at that.
What I meant by my reference to conservative/liberal thought is what I said. Liberals are giverned by feelings and emotions rather than logic-unless you are talking about the abstract logic we all got in our college philosophy classes (which could never fathom).
You might want to check your irony meter, because what you accuse liberals of doing is exactly what you did in this post. And if you claim that you never understood the kind of logic that was taught in philosophy classes, then how can you lay claim to logic as your methodology? That makes no sense. It's illogical, even.
Another way of saying it that if we have a truly open exchange of ideas (the market place of ideas, if you will) we win. In colleges, we don't see the open exchange of ideas, do we? In fact, the tactic of the left is to silence the right. Nowhere is that more obvious than on a university campus.
Or maybe, Gary, and here's a crazy thought, perhaps the conservatives don't get a voice because universities are places for education and having opinions that are based on facts. Perhaps the conservatives don't get very far because when they throw out their stuff in the "marketplace of ideas" it gets shot down for the drivel that it is.
And no, that's not how I see it, but I think that my scenario is just as likely as yours.
As for the anti-Gay marriage post, pls bring them up. I'll be happy to go over them with you. But didn't we argue that before.
Here's a link to your post:
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2007/06/gay-marriage-opposed.html
And here's a rundown, starting with the third paragraph and taking it on a paragraph at a time:
-Assertion, offering no facts to support it.
-Slippery slope, offering no evidence to support it.
-Post hoc ergo propter hoc (coincidental correlation) - just because two things happen at the same time, that doesn't mean that one causes the other, as the point completely ignores all other factors that could come into play.
-Begging the question - you neglect that there are plenty of children with emotional trauma who have had a mother and father raise them. Also, it's another assertion based purely on speculation and no evidence.
See? All logic - no emotion. I'm lock Mr. Spock on Star Trek.
Lance,
As for the philosophy that I had to endure in college, it seemed that you could justify anything if you picked the right philosopher. I decided long ago to be governed by good old common sense not some 5or 7 pillars of whatever that Descartes espoused. (Don't ask me what they were, I am trying to quote from some pinhead student who was in one of masters classes.)
As for the gay marriage thing, I'll get back to you-Beacuse I have to close this and bring up my past blog. I am not that computer savvy. Stand by.
PS: you didn't congratulate me on my Lebon Prize.
Lance,
I asserted that the institution of marriage was originated to protect children-without proof? What document do you want? (There is none). It seems a sensible proposition to me.
Slippery slope about opening marriage up to everyone and everything? Yes, I think so. You know what our legal system is like. If gays can marry, why not polygamy? You know the lawyers will follow up on this. I think it's a matter of common sense.
Last point: Post hoc ergo....
Other factors, sure, but I just think we are cheapening the definition of marriage. Another factor for the decline in European marriages would be the growing secularization in Europe.
I suspect you are drawing me into a college style debate here-straw man, etc. Of course, I may be dead wrong, but I am giving my views based on life experience and (I think ) common sense. besides, this blog is all about opinion right? That's my opinion.
Lance,
I asserted that the institution of marriage was originated to protect children-without proof? What document do you want? (There is none). It seems a sensible proposition to me.
Slippery slope about opening marriage up to everyone and everything? Yes, I think so. You know what our legal system is like. If gays can marry, why not polygamy? You know the lawyers will follow up on this. I think it's a matter of common sense.
Last point: Post hoc ergo....
Other factors, sure, but I just think we are cheapening the definition of marriage. Another factor for the decline in European marriages would be the growing secularization in Europe.
I suspect you are drawing me into a college style debate here-straw man, etc. Of course, I may be dead wrong, but I am giving my views based on life experience and (I think ) common sense. besides, this blog is all about opinion right? That's my opinion.
That's my opinion.
I don't object to you having an opinion. I object to you painting those who disagree with you as people who base their thoughts on emotions rather than logic. In my opinion, that's patronizing and offensive.
Lance,
It's not that you disagree with me. I was expressing the opinion that liberalism (in general) is based on feelings and emotion.
Conservatives can disagree among themselves and liberals can disagree among themselves.
That's all. Don't be mad.
Don't get emotional.
Don't get emotional.
I'd say that I'm Mr. Spock, but you tend to not get a lot of pop culture references.
Oh, I didn't get to this because I was a bit busy last night, but just because I'm obsessed with having the last word:
I asserted that the institution of marriage was originated to protect children-without proof? What document do you want? (There is none). It seems a sensible proposition to me.
Gary, it's a specious statement. While the protection of children is probably a factor, you must realize that marriage developed in different parts of the world for different reasons. In many cultures, it started as a way of tranferring ownership from the father to the woman's mate. (Ever hear of a dowry? Ever wonder why the father "gives away" his daughter at the wedding?) Sorry if I'm confusing the issue with facts.
And furthermore, this is not a logical statement because it implies that the children of gay people do not deserve the same protection.
And if you really want to "protect" marriage, then you'll be all for a ban on divorce. Your "logic" has more holes than a block of Swiss cheese.
Slippery slope about opening marriage up to everyone and everything? Yes, I think so. You know what our legal system is like. If gays can marry, why not polygamy? You know the lawyers will follow up on this. I think it's a matter of common sense.
I'm sorry, but you're being deliberately obtuse. How is it logical to say that same sex marriage is the same as polygamy? Gary marriage is a contract between two people. Polygamy involves many people. It's different. What's "common sense" about saying that two things that are completely different are the same? You may be right that some lawyers will try to follow up with this, but they'll have a completely different battle to fight.
"I'm sorry, but you're being deliberately obtuse. How is it logical to say that same sex marriage is the same as polygamy? Gary marriage is a contract between two people. Polygamy involves many people. It's different. What's "common sense" about saying that two things that are completely different are the same? You may be right that some lawyers will try to follow up with this, but they'll have a completely different battle to fight."
Lance,
Never underestimate the power of wacky judges. In Calif 4 judges overturned the will of 4 million voters.
In regards to gay marriage, I just think we are rushing headlong into turning a 5000 year instituiton on its head. (As for the 5000 years, I am going from memory so if its really 3000, pls don't nitpick.)
Never underestimate the power of wacky judges. In Calif 4 judges overturned the will of 4 million voters.
Gary, I have yet to hear a conservative give an actual, logical argument about why those judges made the wrong choice. The job of a judge is to decide on whether a law is Constitutional or not - following the "will of the people" is not a part of the job description. This is one of the great things about this country - we are a country of law, and that's what protects the minority from the majority.
So, explain to me how descriminating against a group of people falls within the equal protection laws of the Constitution. Otherwise, I have to conclude that you are basing your arguments more from emotion rather than logic.
Lance,
I could go on for hours talking about judges (almost always liberal ones) using their powers to make the laws they want to bring about the desired outcome.
One of my favorite examples was the Florida Supreme Court during the 2000 election. They were determined to get Gore elected. So they overturned at least two lower court decisions (by Dem judges) and ordered the Sec of State to prolong the deadline to certify the vote (which she did). They, in effect, threw out Florida election law and subsituted it for their own.
As for Gay marriage, I think you have seen from my previous post (way back when) that I am no basher of gays. I simply believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. This whole debate has only been with us for what, 20 years? If you find that denying marriage to same sex couples is unconstitutional, then how do you deny it to polygamists, for example? You say, "That's different because marriage is a contract between two people." What constitutional grounds do you use to draw that limitation?
If you really look at it, we can declare many of our age-old traditions "unconstitutional".
Slippery slope, indeed.
I've never accused you of being a basher of gays (why so defensive on that point?) Still, if you claim to be for equality yet think that they don't deserve that right, then you're engaged in some serious doublethink.
If you find that denying marriage to same sex couples is unconstitutional, then how do you deny it to polygamists, for example? You say, "That's different because marriage is a contract between two people." What constitutional grounds do you use to draw that limitation?
Is this really that difficult? You answered it in your question. I'm kinda bad at math sometimes too, but I know the difference between a couple and more than a couple.
Ultimately, Gary, what I'm trying to show you here is that there's nothing more "logical" about your arguments than mine, which clearly line up with the liberal side on this issue. While I'd be lying if I said that there wasn't an emotional reaction to this issue as well, I have come to my conclusions through a great deal of thought and logical thinking. If you spoke to me about this issue in my teens and early twenties, I'd probably be agreeing with you, but I've since turned around on this.
Whenever I get into this particular issue with anybody, there are still several questions that never get answered - like my one about how if marriage is indeed created to protect the children, then how do you reconcile the fact that the children of gay couples do not deserve that protection? Is it their fault that their parents are gay? This right here is a logical hole in your argument, and you can't seem to address it.
Ultimately, your argument boils down to this revealing statement:
I simply believe that marriage is between one man and one woman.
Fantastic. Don't marry a dude then. Don't worry - nobody's going to make you marry one, and you can keep on thinking that. You just don't get to tell other people what it is for them.
If you really look at it, we can declare many of our age-old traditions "unconstitutional".
Examples, please.
lance,
You missed my point. What is to stop judges from ruling that a law polygamy is unconstitutional, if they want to legalize it.
Protecting the children. I said this before. It is too soon to have empirical evidence, but I do believe in another generation, studies will show that children of gay couples have a disproportionate amount of "issues".
What else could be declared "unconstitutional"? How about Christmas displays, the 10 commandments being shown in certain places? Pledge of allegiance? What's next, playing the Star Spangled Banner at baseball games since they may offend non-American citizens?
You missed my point. What is to stop judges from ruling that a law polygamy is unconstitutional, if they want to legalize it.
Gary, do you not realize that the dynamics between two people and three people are going to be completely different by their very nature? Absolutely everything would need to be rewritten (like who gets the inheritance, etc.) With gay marriage, it's still between two people. That alone is enough to stop them.
Like I've said before, the "slippery slope" argument is illogical. It's like saying that giving women the right to vote would lead to hamsters getting the right to vote. They're completely different, and one does not logically follow the other.
Protecting the children. I said this before. It is too soon to have empirical evidence, but I do believe in another generation, studies will show that children of gay couples have a disproportionate amount of "issues".
Gary, logical arguments are based on emperical evidence, not on belief or feelings. If they have any kinds of issues, then it's due to the rest of society giving them a hard time because of it.
But the fact is, there already are kids who are being raised by same-sex couples. You would deny them the same rights that kids of traditional couples. That's the bottom line of your argument.
What else could be declared "unconstitutional"? How about Christmas displays, the 10 commandments being shown in certain places? Pledge of allegiance?
Christmas displays where? On private property? The government can have no say. On government property? Why do they need to have it anyway? As for the 10 Commandments, displaying that in a government building is a clear endorsement of religion, and it doesn't belong. (No gods before me, no working on the Sabbath, no graven images - those are not a part of our laws.) As for the pledge of allegiance, what are you worried about? That fifth graders, who don't comprehend it anyway, won't be coerced into reciting it over and over again? Wouldn't it be better if people voluntarily gave the pledge? (Basically, I'm saying that even if you're right, and they do get rid of it, I don't care.)
What's next, playing the Star Spangled Banner at baseball games since they may offend non-American citizens?
Well now that sounds like something Stephen Colbert would say. Come on - that's just silly. People who go to baseball games expect that - it's part of the experience.
Not to mention that the MLB is a private business and they can play whatever the hell they want. They could play the national anthem of Germany during Nazi rule if they so chose to. Their ticket sales would probably drop by about 99%, but they could play it. The government has absolutely no say in such a matter, so they could never stop them from playing the Star Spangled Banner.
Any pornos depicting Lewinsky and Clinto were based on factual events. I'll let it go at that.
And porn depicting Palin wouldn't be based on factual events? Are you telling me she doesn't enjoy a good roll in the hay? Because let me remind you, the woman has five children.
Anyways, don't you believe in small government, Gary? I guess just not if it involves the personal decisions of two consenting adults who happen to be gay, or a woman's reproductive organs, or military spending. Pretty convenient reasoning there.
Bryan,
You've spent too mush time listening to liberal professors.
Don't think a judge couldn't make some bonehead ruling. Remember the high school football game in Texas a few years back when some judge ruled a gitl student could not give a pre-game prayer? Judges can rule anything they want.
Bryan, I have no interest in which two consenting adults are having sex with one another. I don't care about homosexuality. Gays should be free to live together, love each other, have sex with each other and enter into any contractual arrangement they want. I just think we should not rush headlong into turning a 5,000 year old institution on its head.
Lance,
Same comment to you. Judges in this country can rule anything they want to. Your argument seems to be, "Judges would never do that." What's to stop judges from saying people have a constitutional right to have sex in the middle of the street during rush hour?
As for the empirical evidence about children of gays. gays raising adopted children is a fairly recent thing. Any pschological damage could be due-as you say- to other kids teasing them about it-or, if no one knew, simply the fact that the child eventually realizes that his/her parents are not in the usual roles. I doubt the figures are avialable yet, but in another 25 years, we might be rethinking this whole issue.
Gary, there's a simple difference between a high school football game and the MLB, and I'm surprised you've so easily overlooked it:
a public high school is a part of the state and therefore under the first amendment cannot make an official endorsement of religion, as that prayer would be. The MLB on the other hand is a PRIVATE business that does not receive government funding so far as I know. Therefore they can play or not play whatever anthem they want to.
I think YOU have been listening to too many talk radio pundits.
Gary,
A pre-game prayer has absolutely no place before a public high school game. That judge was ruling according to this crazy little document - perhaps you've heard of it - called the Constitution. (The thing is, I know a bit of my Gospels, and I know that Jesus actually tells his followers to find a quiet place and pray - these people don't even know how to follow the rules of their own messiah.) How do you figure that it's appropriate?
I just think we should not rush headlong into turning a 5,000 year old institution on its head.
Appeals to tradition are not logical. Otherwise, we'd still have that good old tradition of slavery. What I'm trying to get at here isn't so much to get you to change your mind, but to point out that your arguments are not logical. So far, the only thing you've done to further your statement that conservative thought is based on "reason" is state that idea - you haven't proven it.
What's to stop judges from saying people have a constitutional right to have sex in the middle of the street during rush hour?
Geez, talk about your arguments that are based on emotion! Now you're just being absurd! Are you really this paranoid? Gay people are going to marry and then the next thing you know, people will be having sex on the street? Really? Are you serious with this?
Oh, and regarding psychological damage, I went and did a little research, and the conclusion of the APA is that: "Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents."
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html
Facts shmacts though, huh?
Here's a bit more research:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec05/kids.html
Post a Comment