“I know what you’re thinking, you’re thinking, ‘What’s a movie tradesman doing out here? They’re all left-wingers out there, left of Lenin!’ There are a lot of conservative people, moderate people, Republicans, Democrats in Hollywood.... The conservative people by the nature of the word play it closer to the vest, and they don't go around 'hot doggin' it'.... Believe me, they’re there.” - Clint EastwoodIt's not just true in Hollywood. And it's what's behind my encouraging conservatives to engage in my Stop an Echo campaign. Sometimes, we're too polite. Too quiet. And people think we think things we do not, by projecting their views onto our silence.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Clint's Opening
One of the most revealing bits from Clint Eastwood's rambling comic relief last night came right at the beginning.
Capable Men
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Girlfriend Knows
This is pretty insightful. A lot of it's stuff I've tried to say before. But Ginni Thomas used to work for ACORN. She's seen it from the inside.
Monday, August 20, 2012
Akin's Achin'
Got an email from Todd Akin tonight saying he is in it to stay. My vote was a tossup between him and Brunner. Akin's been there for 12 years, but he does have a good voting record.
And if it's between McCaskill and a rotting carcass, I'm voting for the carcass.
I agree the comment was boneheaded. I imagine the "stress" claim is junk science, and apparently enough people believe it that Planned Parenthood has it in their FAQ just to tell people it isn't (not that I'd run to Planned Parenthood for bias-free opinions, the point being the belief is apparently wide enough spread to get their attention). The fact of the matter is, only about 5% of rapes result in pregnancies in the first place .... probably because I don't imagine most rapists make it a priority to sit around calculating their victims' cycles ahead of time to figure out when optimal timing might be. With that one might expect 3/30 or 1/10 chance of actually getting pregnant -- but you have to figure in that many are too young or too old to get pregnant, and the act itself doesn't necessarily even involve penetration ... so ... And you know what? I'll even lay out the possibility (since I don't know for sure) ... that the stress claim is true. But it doesn't matter. The statistic doesn't even address the morality of the issue in the first place.
Akin was standing up for the right to Life, which is one of the reasons he's so popular. He just chose a poor argument (like I said, even if it turns out to be true).
It's like listening to Hannity, which I mainly avoid. I agree with most of his conclusions, but his arguments often drive me batty.
The "all abortion, all the time, for any reason, and we'll even try to talk you into it if you're hesitating at all" crowd (and don't forget Barack Obama's "hey, if you tried to kill 'em and failed and he comes out alive anyway, you can still kill 'em" position) runs straight to the "rape" argument every time. It's the first stop... the "safety" flag pole. But most people (not all, but most) even on the Pro-Life side would support a measure that made exceptions for rape victims -- all 5% of them that it will matter for. He was arguing "hey, not very many get pregnant anyway" which is true. Even the feminists don't claim more than 10% do. Where he really went wrong was going on to try to explain why that might be. Like I said, it only hurt his argument.
In the end, Akin's out to respect and protect human life, McCaskill's fine with throwing it in the garbage if it's inconvenient.
It pays to start with a position based on a principle and build your arguments from there. If you start your arguments from the conclusion and start grasping for explanations (especially in front of microphones or in emails) ... no matter how right your "starting" point was, you just end up hurting your cause.
UPDATE: Upon further reading it looks like most of the flap is over his use of the word "legitimate". Again, I agree... boneheaded.
On the other hand, "rape is rape" may be the prevailing Newspeak, but it's no more true than "murder is murder". There are varying degrees of murder, recognized by the law ... some crimes that fall under "murder" are far more heinous than others ... and only the boneheaded would disagree. If you add to it the fact that rape can now be claimed retroactively ... "hey, even if I acted willing, we didn't sign a contract and I've decided now that it was a bad idea and I now retroactively refuse" can now be considered in court ... I can see where one might come up with the word "legitimate" to distinguish it from these fuzzier re-definitions that have occurred over the years.
It's really not any different than Whoopie Goldberg on Roman Polanski, "I know it wasn't rape-rape. I think it was something else, but I don't believe it was rape-rape." So apparently Whoopie doesn't think "rape is rape", either.
Remember, NewSpeak is a language IngSoc used to keep the population from talking about differences between things and making distinctions and ... you know ... actually thinking. (and they introduced it slowly, over time, broadening the definitions of some words while dropping the words people used to use from the language. Is any of this at all sounding like it describes what we see going on today ... to you?)
Thursday, August 16, 2012
The Complex Grammar Rule
When there is a simple concept to be explained, and it takes twisted grammar with things like double negatives that seem to talk around the point to argue it, that argument is suspect.
Here's a tale of two headlines on a Voter ID law recently being upheld.
WSJ: A Victory for Voter ID
NYT: In PA, a Missed Chance to Reject Voting Barriers
A "Missed Chance" to "Reject" ... Voting "Barriers".
For one thing, they're playing out of the Lakoff book. "Don't use terms that have a positive connotation for the opposition viewpoint." But it sounds so awkward that they have to be at least a little uncomfortable putting it that way -- confident only in the idea that their academic advisor is right about the impact.
Voter ID ... a way to ensure that the person who is voting is the person who says he is voting. Most Americans are solidly behind this. And as usual, the ones who aren't are Democrats -- and not the Democrat voters themselves, mind you. It's the party.
One has to ask why. And they'll tell you all kinds of things ... talking points which are all spelled out in the NYT article. Same ones, over and over. Arguments that sound like arguments in the same way that the picture of the pizza on the box looks like the pizza inside. (#1, it doesn't, and #2, the arguments satisfy with the same discrepancy toward what they supposedly represent as eating the box instead of the pizza).
Ultimately, it boils down to this. When you try to hold people accountable, the people who complain the loudest are the people who don't want to be held accountable.
As for the alleged voting barriers themselves ....
There is a huge difference between "won't be able to" and "unwilling to". Your unwillingness to follow the rules like the rest of us doesn't excuse leaving a giant door open for voter fraud.
Here's a tale of two headlines on a Voter ID law recently being upheld.
WSJ: A Victory for Voter ID
NYT: In PA, a Missed Chance to Reject Voting Barriers
A "Missed Chance" to "Reject" ... Voting "Barriers".
For one thing, they're playing out of the Lakoff book. "Don't use terms that have a positive connotation for the opposition viewpoint." But it sounds so awkward that they have to be at least a little uncomfortable putting it that way -- confident only in the idea that their academic advisor is right about the impact.
Voter ID ... a way to ensure that the person who is voting is the person who says he is voting. Most Americans are solidly behind this. And as usual, the ones who aren't are Democrats -- and not the Democrat voters themselves, mind you. It's the party.
One has to ask why. And they'll tell you all kinds of things ... talking points which are all spelled out in the NYT article. Same ones, over and over. Arguments that sound like arguments in the same way that the picture of the pizza on the box looks like the pizza inside. (#1, it doesn't, and #2, the arguments satisfy with the same discrepancy toward what they supposedly represent as eating the box instead of the pizza).
Ultimately, it boils down to this. When you try to hold people accountable, the people who complain the loudest are the people who don't want to be held accountable.
As for the alleged voting barriers themselves ....
"The voter ID requirement does not specifically single out any class or group and applies uniformly to all, he wrote. But what Republicans know, and what the judge should have realized, was that many voters won’t be able to participate in the democratic process any longer. Some won’t show up at the polls, unwilling to leap the hurdle placed before them, while others will try to vote and find their ballots rejected." [em, mine]
There is a huge difference between "won't be able to" and "unwilling to". Your unwillingness to follow the rules like the rest of us doesn't excuse leaving a giant door open for voter fraud.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Conservative and Liberal
Commenting on Morgan talking about definition of "liberal", I spouted...
Yeah, it is true that "liberal" and "conservative" have gotten so crossed up in meaning to the point where they're practically meaningless without a big dob of context.
On the one hand we have modern-day "conservatives" who want to conserve the once liberal principles on which this country was founded -- by a bunch of Christians who decided to put differences in their sects aside and let Churches play their roles in producing moral, God-fearing people while the government was there to enforce the basic rules of natural law as constrained by the State and Federal Constitutions and while they were at it to accept people from all races and creeds as long as they came and played by our rules. (yeah, I know ... it was started in the midst of slavery and it took 70 or so years to finally squash that... but it's the initial ideals we want preserved, not the initial practices -- and Jefferson and Washington would agree.)
On the other hand we have modern-day "liberals" who shed the term "progressive" after the horrors that movement produced in the first 30 or so years of the 20th Century -- who are still driving hard to have their secular-humanist moral codes encoded in and enforced by the state, where essentially the State is "Society" is the Church ... Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato (“Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State”)
Yeah, google that phrase and see what you come up with.
There is no truth except for what we say it is. It is truly Summa Nulla ... The High Point of Nothing. (from ZBS's "The Adventures of Ruby")
Yeah, it is true that "liberal" and "conservative" have gotten so crossed up in meaning to the point where they're practically meaningless without a big dob of context.
On the one hand we have modern-day "conservatives" who want to conserve the once liberal principles on which this country was founded -- by a bunch of Christians who decided to put differences in their sects aside and let Churches play their roles in producing moral, God-fearing people while the government was there to enforce the basic rules of natural law as constrained by the State and Federal Constitutions and while they were at it to accept people from all races and creeds as long as they came and played by our rules. (yeah, I know ... it was started in the midst of slavery and it took 70 or so years to finally squash that... but it's the initial ideals we want preserved, not the initial practices -- and Jefferson and Washington would agree.)
On the other hand we have modern-day "liberals" who shed the term "progressive" after the horrors that movement produced in the first 30 or so years of the 20th Century -- who are still driving hard to have their secular-humanist moral codes encoded in and enforced by the state, where essentially the State is "Society" is the Church ... Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato (“Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State”)
Yeah, google that phrase and see what you come up with.
There is no truth except for what we say it is. It is truly Summa Nulla ... The High Point of Nothing. (from ZBS's "The Adventures of Ruby")
Wednesday, August 08, 2012
Nope, No Bias There At All
 |
| This is the outfit Reese was whinning about. |
The excerpt from the Diana Reese, bashing Palin's outfit
When Palin took to the makeshift stage in the middle of a Missouri farm field, she was dressed more for the part of Hollywood celebrity than serious politician. I know someone’s going to remind me that just last week, I said it was sexist to focus on the wardrobes of women in politics.As if this woman would ever take Palin seriously no matter what she wore. Shallow. Petty. Catty.
But it was hard for me to take Palin seriously dressed as she was.
And the Superman Shirt? It's one of the gimmicks Steelman has used. [wo]Man of Steel. Steelman. Sarah. Hello? Sarah didn't just throw on a t-shirt here from her middle drawer. Diane makes it sound like she's dressed like some sort of slut. No, Diane. She just looks good and can wear stuff like that. It's a casual outfit. Look at Steelman's! Just a couple of gals, not people who think they're in another class.
This is one of the many things I love about Sarah Palin. She’s just Sarah Palin. She doesn’t put on airs. And while I disagreed with her over Steelman … God Bless this woman. The friggin’ political class and those journalists who fancy themselves a part of it are out of touch with the American people. Sarah simply *is* an American People and doesn’t give a hoot about what they have to say about it. She isn’t dressed like a normal politician … because, guess what? She doesn’t consider herself a politician first. She’s Sarah Palin!
Tuesday, August 07, 2012
I Placed My Bet ...
Obama claims, 'I' — 'I' — 'placed my bet on American workers.' "
Barack? You didn't place that bet. Somebody else ... made that happen.
Did we mention he eats dog?
Barack? You didn't place that bet. Somebody else ... made that happen.
Did we mention he eats dog?
Monday, August 06, 2012
It's a Pattern
"That depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." - Bill Clinton
Saw a headline that said that Nancy Pelosi "backs up" Harry Reid on his "some guy told me Mitt Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years" campaign. Pelosi objects to people calling Reid a liar because ... now get this ... "some guy did tell him that". She's not backing up the truth of the allegation. She's backing up that someone told Reid that.
Actually, she's not even doing that. She's saying you don't know it's a lie, because you weren't privy to the conversation.
See, look:
I will call Ann Romney and tell her, on condition of anonymity, that Barack Obama did not pay income taxes for 10 years. I will tell her that I'm certain of it, and that it can be proven. Then, see, if Ann goes public with this and anybody calls her a liar, she can say, "I'm not lying, somebody did tell me that." And ... here's the kicker, if it finally gets back to me and I'm uncovered and asked to produce, I can tell them, "hey, I'm not lying. Barack Obama did not pay any income taxes until long after he was 10 years old."
How cute. How utterly, disingenuously cute.
Of course, what they're very cleverly trying to do is get the Romneys to release more information to them so that their campaign can comb through it for opportunities to make innuendo and allegations to club Romney over the head with for the next 90 or so days ... perhaps even using language that is technically correct. Because he can't campaign on his record.
This is taking "weasel words" to a whole new level.
Saw a headline that said that Nancy Pelosi "backs up" Harry Reid on his "some guy told me Mitt Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years" campaign. Pelosi objects to people calling Reid a liar because ... now get this ... "some guy did tell him that". She's not backing up the truth of the allegation. She's backing up that someone told Reid that.
Actually, she's not even doing that. She's saying you don't know it's a lie, because you weren't privy to the conversation.
See, look:
“Harry Reid made a statement that is true. Somebody told him. It is a fact,” Pelosi told The Huffington Post in a Sunday interview.
We're playing a little game here. I can play it, too.Asked to respond to Priebus calling Reid “a dirty liar” over the situation, Pelosi initially responded, “Who?” She went on to say that Priebus doesn’t know what he’s talking about since he wasn’t part of Reid’s conversations.
“Well he doesn’t know that,” Pelosi said. “Harry Reid is a person who is, as we know, A, is a fighter, B, he wouldn’t say this unless it was true that somebody told him that.”
I will call Ann Romney and tell her, on condition of anonymity, that Barack Obama did not pay income taxes for 10 years. I will tell her that I'm certain of it, and that it can be proven. Then, see, if Ann goes public with this and anybody calls her a liar, she can say, "I'm not lying, somebody did tell me that." And ... here's the kicker, if it finally gets back to me and I'm uncovered and asked to produce, I can tell them, "hey, I'm not lying. Barack Obama did not pay any income taxes until long after he was 10 years old."
How cute. How utterly, disingenuously cute.
Of course, what they're very cleverly trying to do is get the Romneys to release more information to them so that their campaign can comb through it for opportunities to make innuendo and allegations to club Romney over the head with for the next 90 or so days ... perhaps even using language that is technically correct. Because he can't campaign on his record.
This is taking "weasel words" to a whole new level.
Saturday, August 04, 2012
Mockery
Brother Tom posted this on Facebook a while back. Got it from somewhere else ... but ... hey, it's pretty good.
"Next." "Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."
"Names?"
"Tim and Jim Jones."
"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."
"Yes, we're brothers."
"Brothers? You can't get married."
"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"
"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"
"Incest? No, we are not gay."
"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"
"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."
"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."
"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."
"And I want to marry Tim. Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"
"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."
"Hi. We are here to get married."
"Names?"
"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."
"Who wants to marry whom?"
"We all want to marry each other."
"But there are four of you!"
"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together are the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."
"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."
"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"
"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples."
"Since when are you standing on tradition?"
"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."
"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"
"All right, all right. Next."
"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."
"In what names?"
"David Deets."
"And the other man?"
"That's all. I want to marry myself."
"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"
"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."
"That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"
"Next." "Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."
"Names?"
"Tim and Jim Jones."
"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."
"Yes, we're brothers."
"Brothers? You can't get married."
"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"
"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"
"Incest? No, we are not gay."
"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"
"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."
"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."
"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."
"And I want to marry Tim. Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"
"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."
"Hi. We are here to get married."
"Names?"
"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."
"Who wants to marry whom?"
"We all want to marry each other."
"But there are four of you!"
"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together are the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."
"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."
"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"
"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples."
"Since when are you standing on tradition?"
"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."
"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"
"All right, all right. Next."
"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."
"In what names?"
"David Deets."
"And the other man?"
"That's all. I want to marry myself."
"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"
"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."
"That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"
Of Orwell, Lakoff, and the Consumption of Chicken
In conversations about re-defining marriage, and indeed, about universal health care, this term "basic human right" keeps coming up. Of course, from a natural law perspective (which when it comes to government is pretty much my perspective), a "basic human right" cannot be something that requires action on another's part. Hence, if I have a basic human right to health care, then someone must be compelled to provide it for me. Ergo, not a right.
With this marriage re-definition thing, it's actually even more clear. A basic human right cannot require approval from a third party.
What is "Marriage", from a 30,000 foot view by an asexual alien from another planet where reproduction is done by mitosis?
Why does it matter outside of the two involved in it? Why isn't it just two people comitting to each other, and it doesn't matter to anyone else?
I mean, I love my brothers. I love my best friend Mark. We could choose to live together. We could even legally have sex (but, from my perspective, ... ew). We could write up a contract that says we're gonna share our stuff -- and if I die, he gets my stuff and vice versa. But most people wouldn't call that a marriage.
From a pan-cultural point of view, marriage is what a social group says it is -- and until recently, universally it has meant a relationship between persons of opposite sexes. Even in polyigamist cultures, the various spouses of the central spouse aren't considered spouses of each other. But we're getting a little off track here.
All of the people who feel "we" should recognize same-sex unions as "marriage" are, in fact, free to recognize same-sex unions as "marriage". Insurance companies and employers and hospitals are free to recongize such unions as familial unions and treat them however they wish.
At it's root, this drive to equate same-sex unions with marriage are not about tolerance at all. It's about approval. It's about legally requiring approval.
Let's ask a question. Why does any relationship require approval from the government? We do have a basic human right to free association, after all (which includes the right not to associate with people with whom we choose not to associate).
The answer you will get is ... legal rights.
But what legal rights go with marriage?
Mostly, protections from each other, and protections of children from abusive behavior from their parents. What it really does is recognize the importance of a stable home for children, and that children are not capable of independent living, and the obligation of parents to their children, and the obligation of spouces to each other. In other words, it actually puts legal burdens on the people involved.
I can't name you a legal "right" that you "get" by being married. Maybe there are some. But there are none that would not be solved by recognizing same-sex unions under some other legal term. And I've said on multiple occasions, if this was all they were really after, I believe we'd have such laws in every state by now.
But again, that's not what they're after.
They want the word. They want your approval. Not your tolerance. Your approval. This is what they really mean when they say "tolerance".
So they intentionally blur lines between the meanings of words so that they can say one thing and mean another and not be held responsible for what they really mean. They are so used to doing this that they actually equate "disapproval" with "hate" with a straight face.
If you can't distinguish between acceptance and disapproval, between disapproval and tolerance, between tolerance and recognition, between intolerance and hate ... and therfore, between disapproval and hate ...
you're not open-minded ... you're narrow-minded. And your mind has been deliberately narrowed by the likes of George Lakoff with their own brand of NewSpeak ... which was a language specifically designed to keep people from distinguishing between things -- to keep them thinking, frankly, "inside the box". A very specific box which the language was tailored to keep them in.
And with Mr. Lakoff in mind, I will hereby not refer to the re-definition of marriage as "gay marriage". It is the re-definition of marriage, plain and simple. That's what they want, and that's what I'm calling it.
With this marriage re-definition thing, it's actually even more clear. A basic human right cannot require approval from a third party.
What is "Marriage", from a 30,000 foot view by an asexual alien from another planet where reproduction is done by mitosis?
Why does it matter outside of the two involved in it? Why isn't it just two people comitting to each other, and it doesn't matter to anyone else?
I mean, I love my brothers. I love my best friend Mark. We could choose to live together. We could even legally have sex (but, from my perspective, ... ew). We could write up a contract that says we're gonna share our stuff -- and if I die, he gets my stuff and vice versa. But most people wouldn't call that a marriage.
From a pan-cultural point of view, marriage is what a social group says it is -- and until recently, universally it has meant a relationship between persons of opposite sexes. Even in polyigamist cultures, the various spouses of the central spouse aren't considered spouses of each other. But we're getting a little off track here.
All of the people who feel "we" should recognize same-sex unions as "marriage" are, in fact, free to recognize same-sex unions as "marriage". Insurance companies and employers and hospitals are free to recongize such unions as familial unions and treat them however they wish.
At it's root, this drive to equate same-sex unions with marriage are not about tolerance at all. It's about approval. It's about legally requiring approval.
Let's ask a question. Why does any relationship require approval from the government? We do have a basic human right to free association, after all (which includes the right not to associate with people with whom we choose not to associate).
The answer you will get is ... legal rights.
But what legal rights go with marriage?
Mostly, protections from each other, and protections of children from abusive behavior from their parents. What it really does is recognize the importance of a stable home for children, and that children are not capable of independent living, and the obligation of parents to their children, and the obligation of spouces to each other. In other words, it actually puts legal burdens on the people involved.
I can't name you a legal "right" that you "get" by being married. Maybe there are some. But there are none that would not be solved by recognizing same-sex unions under some other legal term. And I've said on multiple occasions, if this was all they were really after, I believe we'd have such laws in every state by now.
But again, that's not what they're after.
They want the word. They want your approval. Not your tolerance. Your approval. This is what they really mean when they say "tolerance".
So they intentionally blur lines between the meanings of words so that they can say one thing and mean another and not be held responsible for what they really mean. They are so used to doing this that they actually equate "disapproval" with "hate" with a straight face.
If you can't distinguish between acceptance and disapproval, between disapproval and tolerance, between tolerance and recognition, between intolerance and hate ... and therfore, between disapproval and hate ...
you're not open-minded ... you're narrow-minded. And your mind has been deliberately narrowed by the likes of George Lakoff with their own brand of NewSpeak ... which was a language specifically designed to keep people from distinguishing between things -- to keep them thinking, frankly, "inside the box". A very specific box which the language was tailored to keep them in.
And with Mr. Lakoff in mind, I will hereby not refer to the re-definition of marriage as "gay marriage". It is the re-definition of marriage, plain and simple. That's what they want, and that's what I'm calling it.
Friday, August 03, 2012
H8
It occurred to me today, this blather about having disagreements over what constitutes moral behavior or our feelings about people who engage in behavior that may violate ours...
Let me ask you liberals out there (like any of them are actually reading this, but hey, it's a thought exercise...) do you "hate" your child when he or she misbehaves?
Well, do you?
Even mothers of murderers typically love their sons (or daughters).
To inject the term "hate" into the equation on the basis of mere disapproval .... boggles the mind.}
Unless, of course, you do know the difference but you just don't care. Anything to slander your opponent, right? Ends justify the means, Saul?
Which brings me to this, via Morgan, Via Rick, ultimately from a guy named Brandon Vogt... this is excellent.
In light of the Chick-Fil-A controversy, I now realize modern man is almost incapable of distinguishing between these four things:Which helped touch off post #2299. The frustrating realization that modern man is almost incapable of distinguishing between those four things. We have our work cut out for us.
1. Approval and Implicit Condemnation. Just because you support one thing doesn’t mean you’re viciously antagonistic toward another (i.e. “anti-” the opposite.) If Dan Cathy supports traditional marriage between one man and one woman, that doesn’t mean he ipso facto “hates gay people” or is “anti-gay.”
2. Disagreeing and Hating. I disagree with ideas all the time. This does not necessitate hating the person who proposed them. Your beliefs are not your identity.
3. Beliefs and People. This is somewhat similar to #2. Rejecting a belief does not equal rejecting a person. You can reject the validity of same-sex marriage on philosophical and social grounds while still profoundly loving people with same-sex attraction. I reject at least some opinions or actions from each of my friends (such as “double-rainbows are boring” or “playing the lottery is wise.”) They in turn reject plenty of my own. But we don’t hate each other. In fact, just the opposite is true. Our relationship is grounded on a communion of persons, not a symmetry of beliefs.
4. Bigotry and Disagreement. The definition of bigot is “one unwilling to tolerate opinions different than his own”—not “someone who disagrees with me.” Toleration doesn’t require agreement, merely recognition and respect. (Ironically, those quickest to accuse people of bigotry are often bigoted about their flawed definition of “bigot.”)
Thus, there is Clue Batting to do past 2300.
2300
Not a particularly round number, but a round enough number that I happened to notice coming right up. Yup, folks, since 2003 ... in about 9 years, I've posted to this blog 2,300 times (with some recent help from my blood brother jeffmon). While that doesn't come near keeping up with my blog brother Morgan Freeberg or any other of a number of blogger friends and family -- past and present, frankly, I'm stunned at that number. Two thousand, three hundred times ... if anyone had told me I'd ever write that many posts I'd have laughed them off the planet.
This blog was borne of actions like yelling at NPR in the car, and at idiot reporters and anchors on CNN and NBC. Of listening to the constant barrage of liberal sloganeering living in a college town since 1982. Of looking at backs of cars that looked like billboards telling me how righteous the occupants were that they wanted bake sales instead of bombs or some such non-sequitur, sno-globe utopia tripe (hat tip there to Morgan for that term, which I just stole from him tonight).
It has been a Long Strange Trip, part psychological catharsis, part philosophical journey, part friend-making venture (something I really didn't expect, but there it is).
I'm not a well-read blog. That was never the point. Not that I've minded the occasional link landslide, and not that I don't want my ideas to get out.
They do. Like ripples. That'll do, Pig. That'll do.
This blog was borne of actions like yelling at NPR in the car, and at idiot reporters and anchors on CNN and NBC. Of listening to the constant barrage of liberal sloganeering living in a college town since 1982. Of looking at backs of cars that looked like billboards telling me how righteous the occupants were that they wanted bake sales instead of bombs or some such non-sequitur, sno-globe utopia tripe (hat tip there to Morgan for that term, which I just stole from him tonight).
It has been a Long Strange Trip, part psychological catharsis, part philosophical journey, part friend-making venture (something I really didn't expect, but there it is).
I'm not a well-read blog. That was never the point. Not that I've minded the occasional link landslide, and not that I don't want my ideas to get out.
They do. Like ripples. That'll do, Pig. That'll do.
Sick and Tired
Morgan, on HKB
I mean, to a liberal.
I'll tell you what the difference is. The difference is that THE LIBERAL KNEW OBAMA WAS LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH, AND DIDN'T CARE!!!!!
About that, what else do they know he's lying through is teeth about and don't care, and will attack you for saying he doesn't mean what he says?
Like, for instance, I say Obama is a Marxist. I base it on his collectivist rhetoric, and the fact that he was born to Marxists, raised by Marxists, influenced by his Marxist relatives' Marxist friends, and sought out Marxists in college (read his autobiography for Chrissakes). He worked for Marxist ACORN as a Marxist Community Organizer, and joined the Marxist "New Party".
But no, he hasn't said on public record that he is, in fact, a "Marxist", and he has said he supports the free market, which Marxists don't ... so therefore we can't call him a Marxist. It's just a "dog-whistle" word for "black", according to the left. Frankly, I think "dog-whistle" is a "dog-whistle" word for the Left that means "hey, I'm just pulling this shit out of my ass, but go with it because it makes the other guy look bad if people buy it."
But, you see, just as Obama told us that he believes that marriage is between one man and one woman, and so hey, he's on your side ... he also told us he values free markets. Or made some such noise in support of it. Or he wouldn't have been elected.
Or he wouldn't have been elected.
He'll say anything, if it gets him elected. Then he just goes and does what he wants. You cannot trust such a man.
... is sick and tired of seeing things justified, that otherwise would not be, "because there is still racism/sexism/bigotry out there."
Like, freakin' DUH there is. There always will be. There is any kind of opinion you'd care to imagine "out there." There are people "out there" who eat their own poop.
If it wouldn't make sense in some mythical Nirvana-land in a snowglobe, in which the racism and bigotry has been somehow eradicated...then, it doesn't make sense any other time either, in any other world. And, my experience is, whenever I hear this dumb phrase I'm probably going to end up collecting yet another example of racists-calling-non-racists-racists.
Just stop insulting my intelligence.Which brings me to this. What is the difference between Obama saying that he believes, as a Christian that marriage is between one man and one woman and Mr. Cathy believing marriage is between one man and one woman?
I mean, to a liberal.
I'll tell you what the difference is. The difference is that THE LIBERAL KNEW OBAMA WAS LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH, AND DIDN'T CARE!!!!!
About that, what else do they know he's lying through is teeth about and don't care, and will attack you for saying he doesn't mean what he says?
Like, for instance, I say Obama is a Marxist. I base it on his collectivist rhetoric, and the fact that he was born to Marxists, raised by Marxists, influenced by his Marxist relatives' Marxist friends, and sought out Marxists in college (read his autobiography for Chrissakes). He worked for Marxist ACORN as a Marxist Community Organizer, and joined the Marxist "New Party".
But no, he hasn't said on public record that he is, in fact, a "Marxist", and he has said he supports the free market, which Marxists don't ... so therefore we can't call him a Marxist. It's just a "dog-whistle" word for "black", according to the left. Frankly, I think "dog-whistle" is a "dog-whistle" word for the Left that means "hey, I'm just pulling this shit out of my ass, but go with it because it makes the other guy look bad if people buy it."
But, you see, just as Obama told us that he believes that marriage is between one man and one woman, and so hey, he's on your side ... he also told us he values free markets. Or made some such noise in support of it. Or he wouldn't have been elected.
Or he wouldn't have been elected.
He'll say anything, if it gets him elected. Then he just goes and does what he wants. You cannot trust such a man.
Thursday, August 02, 2012
Wednesday, August 01, 2012
"No H8"
The daughter of an old college friend of mine ... I haven't seen her since she was a very little girl, is all grown up now and helped heal the earth and save the planet from the rising oceans by voting for The Light Worker™, Barack Obama.
We just "friended" on facebook, so I really didn't want to comment directly on her recent status update, which read:
So Chick-fil-a = "Hate"?
The owner simply said, when asked, like President Obama said when these boycotters all voted for him, that he believes Marriage is between one man and one woman.
Where's the "hate"?
The self-righteous moral preeners out there could take a lesson from this man. This is what is known as "tolerance". People may hold different beliefs and perhaps lead different lifestyles than he does, and he does nothing to stop them, and indeed, is very inclusive of them in his business practice. That's the epitome of tolerance.
Intolerance, on the other hand, is demonizing and threatening to run someone who holds a different belief than you have ... out of town. You're not welcomed here. You can't do business here. We'll accuse you of having feelings you do not feel and say vile things about you and your company because we disagree with your belief. That's intolerance. So are you tolerant, or intolerant?
1984 is here, folks. Up is down, black is white, intolerance is tolerance and tolerance is intolerance.
We just "friended" on facebook, so I really didn't want to comment directly on her recent status update, which read:
No H8So, Chick-fil-a "H8"'s, therefore we want them gone, and just shut up if you disagree is what that basically says.
No Chick-fil-a
No discussion is necessary.
So Chick-fil-a = "Hate"?
The owner simply said, when asked, like President Obama said when these boycotters all voted for him, that he believes Marriage is between one man and one woman.
Where's the "hate"?
Does he refuse to serve gays?The fact of the matter is he didn't even mention homosexuals at all, or whether or not they love each other or whether or not they can live together. He just doesn't believe that the term "Marriage" describes a formal relationship between them.
No. Does he refuse to hire gays? No.
Does he pay his straight employees make more than his gay employees? No.
The self-righteous moral preeners out there could take a lesson from this man. This is what is known as "tolerance". People may hold different beliefs and perhaps lead different lifestyles than he does, and he does nothing to stop them, and indeed, is very inclusive of them in his business practice. That's the epitome of tolerance.
Intolerance, on the other hand, is demonizing and threatening to run someone who holds a different belief than you have ... out of town. You're not welcomed here. You can't do business here. We'll accuse you of having feelings you do not feel and say vile things about you and your company because we disagree with your belief. That's intolerance. So are you tolerant, or intolerant?
1984 is here, folks. Up is down, black is white, intolerance is tolerance and tolerance is intolerance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)