Bookworm on Oct 15 2008 at 9:28 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
I’d heard about this for the past couple of days, but didn’t hear it until today:
Related posts:
Email This Post To A Friend
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Bettijo on Fisking three dishonest Democrat senators on the subject of ObamaCare’s birth control mandate
Earl on Double paying in Britain for health care
Oldflyer on No matter how you read the Second Amendment, it comes up favoring guns in citizens’ hands
Charles Martel on Fisking three dishonest Democrat senators on the subject of ObamaCare’s birth control mandate
Indigo Red on No matter how you read the Second Amendment, it comes up favoring guns in citizens’ hands
Bookworm on Fisking three dishonest Democrat senators on the subject of ObamaCare’s birth control mandateBookworm on William Shatner on gun controlBookworm on Using the First Amendment to nullify God — Air Force editionBookworm on No matter how you read the Second Amendment, it comes up favoring guns in citizens’ hands
jj on Double paying in Britain for health care
Check this out if you haven’t already…
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/globe_hey_kids_lets_scrap_the.html
From suek’s link:
> The goal remains the same: Get the new administration up, running, and dealing with the crisis as quickly as possible. It is simply vital for the government to act in as urgent a fashion as the situation demands.
This is precisely the kind of “crisis atmosphere” that radical activists seek to create or exploit. (It’s also in the Alinsky playbook, by the way.)
A Crisis Atmosphere causes people to abandon all principle. That is exactly what is needed to rout your opponents. (Bailout, anyone?)
Laugh. It’s as stupid as people who vote ONLY for the anti-abortion candidate.
This is what makes me so crazy about the supposed “voter suppression” charge.
Hundreds of thousands of people are too stupid to register to vote correctly and find the correct voting location on the correct day. Nevertheless we are supposed to do everything humanly possible to ensure that these same people get to vote, even though they can’t identify the key positions or even running mates of the presidential candidates!
Why are we allowing voter registration laws to be disregarded to ensure that these people get to vote?
In a health-care setting, these people would never be allowed to consent to a procedure if they were this unable to articulate their health condition and the procedure they were about to undergo. It would be considered unethical.
And yet, our questioning of these people’s right to vote is lambasted, even though their votes will have a direct impact on what happens to them and everyone else in this country.
It just makes me want to scream.
Deana
Helen –
At least the people who only vote for anti-abortion candidates are able to identify which candidates ARE anti-abortion.
Deana
Yeah Helen! No less STUPID than only voting for a candidate because of the color of his skin.
Spiff
Folks, These people ARE voting for Obama because of the color of his skin.
I like that for a bumper-sticker, Deanna: If you’re not smart enough to figure out how to vote, you shouldn’t be voting!
It’s not as if people have to trek through dangerous jungles, fight interplanetary aliens, and master secret codes to vote. In America, we’ve made it about as easy as possible, whether one is registering or voting. It’s kind of like a doggie IQ test. There are certain levels of intelligence and competence below which we shouldn’t be going.
Incidentally, a basic doggie IQ test involves dropping a blanket on top of a dog and see if it can figure out how to get out from under the blanket. My neurotic poodle (RIP) passed with flying colors; my lazy corgi (RIP) failed every time, because she thought it was a fine thing to have blanket dropped upon her.
Bookworm, your comment just sent me into a fit of giggles!
Don’t give the left any ideas. They’ll probably accuse us of collaborating with those interplanetary aliens to keep those Floridians from the polls . . .
@ Helen,
Yep they sure are; stupid isnt it?
And how is that good for the country Helen? That a man gets elected to the most powerful position in the country because of the color of his skin rather than the content of his character?
I’m just not seeing it?
Spiff
Helen,
I do not understand your point. Somehow standing up for life is stupid in your world? I will never vote for a pro-abortionist. Ever. The first criteria I look for in a candidate is their position on life.
This pretty well sums up my feelings on the matter.
There can be no compromise of the life issue. Unborn babies are the most innocent of all human life.To support the deliberate killing of pre-born children reveals the most calloused heart and confused mind that can be known to man.
Any person who would betray these little souls would betray any friend , any cause, or any virtue. To be lukewarm and non-committal on abortion reveals the soul of a coward. To be willing to sacrifice innocent children on the altar of political expediency or economic gain reveals the character of a fiend.
Over the years I have lost the name of the author.
That canine blanket IQ test varies with the breed of the dog. A terrier will dig its way out. A beagle will sniff its way out. A schnauzer will struggle heroically with the blanket and wrap itself into a ball. A saluki will dash out of the way before the blanket can descend. A border collie will fold the blanket for you.
Z, you have the most wonderful sense of humor.
Haa-haa-haa! I’d believe that about a border collie.
My little baby (a Maltese/Yorkie mix), God bless her, she’d promptly snuggle up and go to sleep.
Deana
rockdalian,
RE: “The first criteria I look for in a candidate is their position on life.
This pretty well sums up my feelings on the matter.
There can be no compromise of the life issue.”
My point is, substitute their word “race” for your word “life” and you have people voting for a single word. Their race is their life. What more do they (or you) need to know?
We’re sharing our home at the moment with a Doberman. No question but that she’d chew her way through it in about a minute and a half. And then probably drag it joyously around the house or yard at top speed for the next 15 minutes. Then…if she discovered that the horses were boogered by it, she’d be at it for the next half hour having a glorious time causing unmitigated panic!!
On Helen’s blog I asked her this question:
Helen,
As a liberal and a Christian, maybe you can explain to me the position of supporting a politician that believes abortion is proper until birth?
To my way of thinking it is antithetical to Christianity.
Thanks and I’m not trying to turn this into a debate, I just want to read your answer.
This was Helen’s response:
I didn’t respond to Helen on her blog, because I had promised not to.
Helen, I’m glad you think abortion is murder.
But why wouldn’t you want to do something to prevent murder, if that’s what you believe it is. Do you realize how inconsistent your position is, though we are all inconsistent in one form or another.
You are also wrong to equate abortion with the death penalty or death from war for that matter. The person receiving a death sentence is not innocent, and deserving of the punishment, but not so the unborn.
War is diplomacy by other means. Without the threat of war, tyrants would run unchecked in this world. Occasionally war is sometimes a necessary outcome.
Accepting Christ is a personal decision and can’t be forced on anyone. Abortion is an act that affects an innocent life. They can’t be equated.
I will never vote for a pro-abortion candidate. In my view, if a person is willing to rationalize this act on a completely innocent life, they will rationalize on other moral choices.
As a Christian, while I support conservative economic positions because I believe that represents the best chance for my children to enjoy their freedom– including the freedom to be poor, it’s the moral choices we make as a country that haunt us for generations.
BrianE, I am a pacfist, too. I don’t think ANYONE needs a gun. But the US constitution guarantees people the right have those killiing devices. It’s their choice, not mine. I feel the same about other people’s abortions. These are not my decisions to make. I try very hard to live one life well: my own.
RE; “You are also wrong to equate abortion with the death penalty or death from war for that matter.”
You have right to your opinion. And I have right to mine.
I think more people might choose not to have abortions, if they had more money.
Helen said,
> My point is, substitute their word “race” for your word “life” and you have people voting for a single word. Their race is their life. What more do they (or you) need to know?
Let me emphasize the most important sentence there:
Their race is their life.
I don’t think I have ever read anything more damning.
Martin Luther King would be speechless with horror.
Ben Franklin is credited with saying that beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. I say the butterfy ballot is further proof.
Bennie is also credited with saying a democracy is where two wolves and a sheep get to vote on what’s for dinner.
I am in favor of a) staining your finger purple (a la Iraq) to prevent voting more than once and b) a universal tax. BHO’s idea of taking the fruit/profit of my labor and giving it to another makes me a slave and the other a master.
Bad.
Helen –
You say that more people might choose not to have abortions, if they had more money.
Helen, they can put their child up for adoption for free.
In fact, thousands upon thousands of American couples would be more than willing to pay young women a lot of money for their health care, food, and other needs during their pregnancy in order to be blessed with the ability to adopt their children.
Deana
No, Mike Devx, King would not. I wrote my master’s thesis on King.
Race doesn’t necessarily tell me anything about a person’s life. For example, James T. Harris (http://www.essence.com/news_entertainment/news/articles/mccainsupporterclearsair) is a black man, the attitude of the commenters at Essence notwithstanding. He’s as far from 0bama as he can possibly be ideologically. At least a person’s stance on abortion tells me something about his values and worldview.
>>Helen, they can put their child up for adoption for free. >>
Hey…due to an error in writing a bill, in Utah you can just drop them off at your local hospital. Regardless of age.
Folks, These people ARE voting for Obama because of the color of his skin.
It is unlikely they even know the color of his skin.
Bill Clinton first Black President and all that. They thought he was black.
No, Mike Devx, King would not. I wrote my master’s thesis on King.
That’s about as good an argument as the one Oz presented concerning Republicans and election engineering.
BrianE, I am a pacfist, too. I don’t think ANYONE needs a gun.
You and Oz don’t need a gun, obviously.
But the US constitution guarantees people the right have those killiing devices.
You, who do not even understand the principles of violence or warfare, think you know when a device is for killing?
Quisp, Blackness should tell you that this person has been discriminated against at some point in his/her life, some more than others, of course. It should tell you this person wants equality, whatever equality means to him/her. It should tell you he/she wants to comfortable wearing dark skin and not have to bring up “character” in instances where a group of all white people wouldn’t think about character for an instant. Blackness should tell you that if the person has been successful in whatever he/she attempted to do that he/she had to overcome the odds.
>>Blackness should tell you that this person has been discriminated against at some point in his/her life, some more than others, of course.>>
Helen, _Everybody_ has been discriminated against at some point in his/her life.
Helen,
What was MLK’s position on abortion?
Would MLK recoil with horror at tha decimation of the Black family caused by abortion?
http://www.angelfire.com/mo/baha/king.html
Everyone changes, Helen. I am free to imagine Martin Luther King examining the state of human affairs today, and that black people could, forty years later, be COMPLETELY living their lives through a filter composed solely of their skin… he would shake his head in horror and say, “They are lost, and they are not few.”
There were two Martin Luther Kings weren’t there? One who proclaimed that we should all be judged by the content of our character, not the color of our skin, and one who was in fact engaged in racial politics.
It is hard for me to imagine him thinking “my race is my life” with the totality that such a statement represents. If so, then we have granted him far, far, far too much credit.
Helen, you have absolutely no idea of how to make things more fair and just for those without power. You abandoned the people of Iraq and think you have any credibility to talk about the downtrodden in America? No way.
If so, then we have granted him far, far, far too much credit.
Martin Luther King had two types of messages. one for whites, who he knew held the power to make things better for blacks, and another message for blacks, who he knew had to be kept controlled otherwise they would freak out and blow everything up.
Malcom X only had one message, however, and when he left the Nation of Islam, due to signs of progress he saw coming from whites, the Nation of Islam and the Blackness rendered X dead on demand, Mike. They are efficient that way. Malcom X, unlike Martin Luther King, had the same message for blacks and whites.
America fought a war to free ourselves from European aristocracy’s obsession with good blood and eugenics. Now Helen wants to accept the shackles of slavery upon herself and Americans and we’re supposed to just say “it’s okay to have a difference of opinion”? Yeah, it is okay, until Helen’s votes and political support for Obama strips it away from me. Then it will be not okay.
rockdalian, I really don’t know MKLs position on abortion. I know his beliefs did not reflect his practice with respect to his own sexual behavior, but I never read any thing about his position on abortion or birth control.
Mike Devx,
RE: “There were two Martin Luther Kings weren’t there? One who proclaimed that we should all be judged by the content of our character, not the color of our skin, and one who was in fact engaged in racial politics.”
No, not really. King did change his views after 1963 (became more like Malcolm X and Malcolm X more like King) as the civil rights movement fell apart, as leaders argued as to methodology. King became less idealistic and clinically depressed (and very, very tired) toward the end of his life. He got weary of preaching nonviolence (although he never wavered from it). He just grew to realize how deeply racism was ingrained in the (white) American spirit. King was always proud to be black. He was proud of black culture, religion, and values, and thought blacks had much to offer white America.
King refused “to fragment his own soul” even when it meant loosing popularity, such as when he opposed the Viet Nam War. Please remember, King was 39 when he was killed. Most of us who are older than that have changed our views a time or two since that age. Probably King would have, too. But that’s speculation.
Y. , Have you read “Martin and Malcolm and America” by James Cone? It explains how the two came closer toward each other before each was killed.
I have no idea what “shackles” I wish to take on (#35) by voting for Obama, which I, indeed, will do.
Just a precious moment, it was.
Down in my heart, being a giving person and all that, these folks should be given a special opportunity to participate in a catered special day to vote.
How about voting for as many times as they are registered, on NOV 5. Just vote your silly heart out, as many times as you can pull the lever.
God! Democracy is wonderful to behold, and I’m so happy Sarah Palin will win by a landslide.
(Q. What in the H377 were they all drinking?)
Helen,
Thank you for the detailed comments on Martin Luther King. Everything you wrote matches my more limited knowledge of the man.
A few less important comments than the Thank You above…
> King became less idealistic and clinically depressed (and very, very tired) toward the end of his life.
I’d heard a little of this. While you and I would likely debate the extent of virulent racism in today’s society, it’s clear that battling widespread endemic racism in the 50′s and 60′s would certainly take a terrible toll.
> He just grew to realize how deeply racism was ingrained in the (white) American spirit.
The worst thing about racism and other associated tribalisms is that they seem to become fixed in place on entry into adulthood and rarely waver from that point on. Changes only occur generationally. I’m mildly troubled by your parenthetical focus on “white”, but I’m quibbling. (Certainly Jeremiah Wright has shocked me, but that shock just means I’ve been isolated from some strains of far-left liberal thought for my whole life. I at least do have to give him credit for being absolutely authentic to and public with his core philosophies, no matter how much I disagree with them.)
> King was always proud to be black. He was proud of black culture, religion, and values, and thought blacks had much to offer white America.
Certainly longstanding values within the black experience have influenced American culture for the positive. I’d question whether there’s been much positive influence since the 70′s, but that’s due to the terrible collapse – in almost every way – within the urban black population since the Great Society debacle. (Yes, I know we would disagree on this point strongly.)
I’ve never really understood the benefit of being proud about any aspect of identity. I never feel any pride of any sort in any aspect of my own identity – I’m born with it, after all. Didn’t earn it. I’m not even proud of things considered “white” such as the Founding Fathers’ vision of classical liberalism, which I’ve expounded on elsewhere. I feel more blessed and deeply grateful to have been exposed to it and lived under its influence. I’ve got no reason to be “proud” of it as it relates to my identity.
> Y. , Have you read “Martin and Malcolm and America” by James Cone? It explains how the two came closer toward each other before each was killed.
This is snide of me, but it’ll be difficult in this forum to get anyone to take up anything by Mr. Cone! Anyone who could write “If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him” and not have repudiated it as indicative of a thoroughly evil philosophy… well, there’s got to be a better spokesman.
I have no idea what “shackles” I wish to take on (#35) by voting for Obama, which I, indeed, will do.
Wars and violence develop primarily from cultural differences that cannot be bridged through security interests, economic interests, or social compacts.
By engaging in class warfare, helen, and dividing the country up in racists vs people who vote for Obama out of white guilty and noblesse oblige, you are ensuring that future generations are unable to free themselves from fear, violence, warfare, and misery. These are the shackles that exist because of the institution called human nature, helen.
King would almost have to be against abortion given that many black babies are aborted compared to rich white racists. It’s a socio-political program designed to keep blacks in the minority and keep them small and weak. If King was proud of blackness, he’d be hard pressed to argue for abortion and Planned Parenthood like most white fake liberals do today.
Zhombre:
From one border collie fan to another, great post.
Helen, I assume everyone wants to achieve his or her own version of “equality” and I know that anyone who is successful has overcome the odds. (Ever read stats on small business failures?)
What I don’t understand is your statement, “he/she wants to comfortable wearing dark skin and not have to bring up “character” in instances where a group of all white people wouldn’t think about character for an instant.” What sorts of groups do you hang out with that “character” isn’t *always* the most important assessment of an individual? What’s the advantage of “not having to bring up character” – unless yours is questionable, like Senator 0bama’s. That’s not a function of his skin color, it’s a function of his ideals and choices. I’m supposed to ignore those so he can be “comfortable in his skin”? I’m sorry, that sounds like a definition of racism (” a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities” – Merriam Webster) .
As an aside, it’s been eye opening for me to spend time with several families who’ve immigrated from Ghana, because they see America as a land of fabulous opportunity. You know who discriminates against them for the color of their skin? African-Americans, who don’t like their work ethic, commitment to education and resultant success.
Sorry, there shouldn’t be a comma after African-Americans in my last sentence, because that makes it sound as though I’m saying all African-Americans behave monolithicly toward African immigrants, and that’s not so. However, my friends have told me they have far more trouble with African Americans being openly hostile than with any other racial group prevalent in the area.
Haven’t read all the comments, so maybe this has been said, but to Helen in #15, I would say this:
Consider that the pro-life voter (I, at least) will not vote for someone who supports the unlimited abortion license specifically because that person divides the human race into two groups – one of which (us) has full rights and the other of which (them…in this case, the unborn) does not. I find it incredibly dangerous to give anyone who thinks this way the power of coercion over the rest of us folks.
People who vote on the basis of skin color are doing much the same thing – dividing the human race into two groups, and treating them differently. That’s how we got (and still have, in some parts of the world) black slavery, Helen…..I oppose it with everything in me, and the tribalism represented by those folks on the street is genuinely dangerous to our liberal order and our liberty.
It is the pro-life people who are consistent here, and equating them with racists is a fundamental category error, as well as an outrageous canard. Please reconsider. We pro-lifers ARE “voting for a single word”, but the word is “justice”.
Earl – well-said.
Deana