Wednesday/Thursday Highlights

OK, been busy. Links?

  1. What does it mean to be American. The conceit that this is unique is, well, probably not unique. Recall the book I mentioned a few weeks ago … Mr Snyder’s Reconstruction of Nations? This has relevance, recall one of the puzzles is how Poland and Lithuania arrived at their national identity … recall a founding “poem which all Polish students learn in school” has in its opening stanza “Lithuania my fatherland” and … when Lithuania became a nation few people spoke Lithuanian … in the cities they spoke Polish, Yiddish, Russian and Belorussian was spoken in the country and they had similar religious divisions. Nations based on an idea is not unique as we pretend. Our notions of its uniqueness relies on our ignorance of history.
  2. Credentials and skillz.
  3. The reality based side of the aisle strikes again.
  4. Moving right.
  5. On responses to killings. I’d note that in a prior admin, Mr Bush was always slow to respond … and the later responses by the adminstration might be better. But the poster is right, we don’t as a nation “deplore any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others” in point of fact we defend the freedom of speech … with sharp pointy sticks.
  6. Oooh, one for the Palin fans.
  7. For the Darwinist ethics conversation. A social Darwinist it seemed to me might run with this.
  8. Woo hoo.
  9. Grist for the abortion debate.
  10. Of logic and boxes.
  11. Female protagonists and Disney.
  12. Ivy league.
  13. News that will be buried by the left wing press.
  14. Which Jack?

7 Responses to Wednesday/Thursday Highlights

  1. we don’t as a nation “deplore any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others” in point of fact we defend the freedom of speech

    Nice attempt to spin Romney’s massive blunder by trying to paint a false choice. To deplore something is to simply have an opinion about it. You can deplore Mel Gibson’s antisemitic rants, you can deplore Brittany Spears’s music, you can deplore whipped cream out of a can. None of those people need pointy sticks to defend them against those who deplore them. That being said what reason is there not to deplore this probably fake movie? Previous Presidents (Republicans both) have deplored the Danish cartoons and earlier Salmon Rushdie’s novel….both of which were more intelligent uses of free speech to make a valid argument critical of Islam IMO. The attempt to McCarthy the Egyptian Embassy staff who simply tried to calm tensions by pointing out that the US gov’t neither made nor endorsed the video not even 12 hours after the killing to me makes the first half of ‘loyal opposition’ somewhat questionable. That plus Romney’s smirk at the news of the killing of an American as if it was a lackluster jobs report is pretty grating IMO. Intrade’s share price of Obama being relected has gone up to $6.37….interesting.

    Grist for the abortion debate.

    Seems like they are exploiting language’s ambiguities to me. If I have a gun and take a shot at you it’s attempted murder. Why? Haven’t plenty of people been shot and lived to tell about it? Yea, but it’s pretty reasonable to say shooting someone highly increases the risk of death. I’m sure there’s plenty of cases where pregnany comes with a risk to the mother. Can a doctor guarantee she will die without an abortion? Probably not. I’m not seeing how that moves the abortion debate anywhere, though. I’d still say it’s the mother’s call to decide what risks she should or should not be taking.

    Moving right.

    Good thing you only read the headline. The chap’s registering Republican because he’s hoping he can help fix a party that is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

    Oooh, one for the Palin fans.

    Ohhh yes, some unfishined business. What has become of that $100K plus in expensive clothes the Palins stole? I recall the claim was that it was not income tax fraud because after the election they were going to donate all of those clothes to be auctioned by charity. Did that ever happen?

    Other unfinished business, still waiting to hear from you on the BP Rig diaster. As I recall you asserted it would be established by some official report or whatnot that it was caused by the gov’t ordering the rig to follow some procedure that caused the explosion. Still waiting on that are we?

  2. For the Darwinist ethics conversation. A social Darwinist it seemed to me might run with this.

    It seems pretty bad for Charles Murray’s hypothesis. If IQ is so malleable then The Bell Curve‘s importance becomes much diminished. Even if you have a portion of IQ that’s inherited and that inheritance has different racial averages, you’re never going to get to a point where you can muffle all the non-inherited ‘noise’ for those differences to have real effects.

  3. What does it mean to be American. The conceit that this is unique is, well, probably not unique.

    Funny, I’m a member of a group for former Orthodox Jews that was just discussing the alleged uniqueness of the Jewish people. In truth, all peoples/nations/individuals are unique in a thousand different ways, although some brag about it more than others. I agree – uniqueness is definitely not unique.

    we don’t as a nation “deplore any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others” in point of fact we defend the freedom of speech

    This is a classic example of sloppy logic, Mark. The two are not mutually exclusive. (I personally, of course, do not deplore any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, but if I did that would not be inconsistent with believing in people’s right to do so.)

    It’s funny how whenever there is a story about someone on your side doing something indefensible (Romney, in this case) you have to find some angle on the story so that you can criticize the other side. You can’t just admit that your side goofed.

    Grist for the abortion debate.

    LOL, this is exactly what I’m always talking about with you. This is obviously a symposium designed to create “grist” for your side.

    While many of the organisers have been involved in anti-abortion events in the past, a spokesman for the group, Dr Eoghan de Faoite, told The Irish Times the event was not linked in any way to the Pro-Life Campaign or any other organisation.

    LOL, “not linked.”

    Try googling some of the speakers, you gullible fool. :-)

    I’ll do the first one for you. First google hit for Byron Calhoun. He’s a staff member of an anti-abortion group called NIFLA. Now you try it.

  4. Of course we also have a lie to go along with this, Romney accused the President of apologizing…which he hasn’t done in the past and didn’t do now. (I.e. ‘deplore’ != apologize for. To apologize for something is to assert you carry some moral responsibiity for the thing you deplore. Simply deploring something, though, does not amount to an apology unless it is accompanied by some assertion that somehow one was either responsible for the creation of the deplorable thing)

  5. Boonton,
    So, you say the US deplores this? Hmmm. Show me the US official “deplore” stance on the pictures, artists and so on pictured here.

  6. You seem to forget that the US gov’t has as much free speech right as any individual, company or group. All the time US diplomates are agreeing with, disagreeing with, deploring, commending all types of positions, statements and other things said and done by other people, countries, etc.

    Show me the US official “deplore” stance on the pictures, artists and so on pictured here.

    Why would this be relevant at all to Romney’s failure? What school of free speech do you belong to that requires one to comment about everything in a genre if one comments about one thing?

  7. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/09/the_mohammed_movie_and_the_embassy_attacks_romney_betrays_free_speech_.html has a good summary of the Egyptian Embassy Tweets Romney lied about less than 24 hours after his country was attacked.

    The Embassy clearly maintained and defended US values in that it clearly asserted the free speech right to make the film and it’s right to say that the statements were misguided. It even address a question about whether it was apologizing for the film directly:

    “we did not apologize to anyone because we did nothing.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>