It’s “random thoughts” day

I’m on another vacation, sitting in a cyber cafe, working at a small computer with a microscopic keyboard, so it must be random thoughts day. Thank goodness DQ is doing the heavy lifting.

The first thing that caught my interest is what Mitt said at the debate, which I really liked:

But it was Romney forced on the defensive on the issue of abortion, when Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback defended automated phone calls his campaign had been making that highlight his rival’s one-time support for pro-choice policies.

“It’s truthful,” Brownback said.

Romney called it “desperate, maybe negative,” adding moments later, “I get tired of people that are holier than thou because they’ve been pro-life longer than I have.” (Emphasis mine.)

The fact is that many people who came of age in the 1960s have taken a long slow journey from one side to the other. As my own change in political convictions shows, the fact that I came late to the game doesn’t mean I’m not one of the biggest fans. In any event, as I keep reminding and reminding people, the best we can hope for is a chief executive who appoints strict constructionist judges, since it is they, not the President, who will change abortion policies.

Indeed, I’m reminded again and again that, probably, the most important thing the new President can do is change the Supreme Court — and we must really hope that the new President is a conservative. I think I’ve hammered hope the point that, if you haven’t already read Melanie Phillips’ Londonistan, you must. It points the finger of blame at activist judges who decided that the laws and traditions of their own country were irrelevant, because they were connected to a higher authority of human rights law, courtesy of the EU and the UN. (As you may recall, some of our more liberal and aged Supreme Court justices have been making tentative moves in the same direction.)

I’m now reading Bruce Bawer’s While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within, which describes in chilling detail what is happening, day-to-day, on the streets of Europe as a result of the multi-cultural, socialist, non-democratically judge ruled European nations that allowed unlimited Muslim immigration, with full funding no matter the fraud, and has proven unwilling because of  its doctrinal blinders to deal with the inevitable Islamist nihilism, violence and brutality.  Bawer is a liberal  gay man who is mad, frightened, and finally aware the America is the last, best hope for Western freedom  and democracy.

Continuing randomly, Confederate Yankee continues to eviscerate the once reputable TNR over the Scott Thomas propaganda piece.  It now turns out that when TNR did  it’s little “we were sort of wrong” mea culpa, it left out  a few pertinent facts.  Whoops!

TNR’s not  the only one covering up information to score political or ideological points (or just to cover up journalistic  malfeasance).  Turns out that, again, the Times is guilty of allowing the publication of an article attacking Orthodox Jews that used as its starting  point a known false anecdote.  Starting with Walter Duranty, journalistic integrity at the Times seemed to have morphed into, if we beieve the underlying ideology, we are acting with integrity when we lie about those  facts to support our ideological  beliefs.  Incidentally, that’s psychologically similar to the European Muslims who have no problems breaking European laws because, as far as they’re concerned, such laws don’t exist.

Incidentally, since I’m in Times bashing mode (it’s editorial policies make it an easy target), let me just  direct you to an American Thinker article exposing its decision to publish a piece by known  Israel  basher — and Canadian — Michael  Ignatieff as he explains  why he can’t support the war in Iraq. Surprise, surprise!  It’s all about the “Jooos.”  As Babu said to Jerry, finger rhythmically wagging, “You are a very bad man.”

And the last random thought, a surprising report today that more women are living with the fathers of their children!  We used to call that marriage, but they don’t because they aren’t (married, that is).   I  suppose this should be heartening, but I find it depressing, at least from the child’s  point of view.  Marriage says (even though it may not  mean) “we’re committed for the long haul.”  Living  together says (even though it may not  mean) “I can walk out at any time.”  I think the former is better for children’s sense of stability, rather than the latter.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ ymarsakar

    I think in essence men or women are avoiding the legal hassles of marriage. John Ross forwarded the proposal that women change after marriage, thereby creating relationship problems that put stress on new marriages.

    Since people can already walk out of a marriage, Book, and even the stress of a divorce is not enough of a deterent, marriage no longer says that we’re committed for the long haul. If only because the walk out at any time thing is true for both.

    As for the media, the process of recognizing them as propaganda tools goes side by side with the self-knowledge process of learning what propaganda is and how it works.

  • Ellie

    Please tell me, I need to know. I, too, was born and raised a Dem. How can I tell the diff between “tell me what you want to hear — I’m for that!” and “The fact is that many people who came of age in the 1960s have taken a long slow journey from one side to the other.”

  • Ellie

    A point of clarification: How can I tell if a candidate has evolved in his thinking (pro-life vs pro-choice) or if he is pandering? While BW related to Romney’s position, it struck me as “I was for it [abortion] before I was against it.”

  • http://Bookwormroom.wordpress.com Bookworm

    You actually can’t, Ellie. Some of it is just a leap of faith — I like every thing else about this particular candidate, and I’m going to have to assume that he’ll have a real commitment to whatever his current position is, whether because he truly believes or because he’s making a political deal. I think if someone is a flip flopper generally (a la the tortured Kerry), you’re simply going to be less likely to believe today’s or tomorrow’s or the next day’s ever changing position than you are with someone who has either (a) clearly articulated the reason for his change, (b) shown an otherwise honorable fixity of core principles, or (c) is still better than the next guy.