« Saturday morning -- groveling and linkie goodness | Main | Leaving the Left - no longer abiding the simpering voices of self-styled progressives »
May 21, 2005
'How do they do it?' -- Some answers
Sometimes I troll the leftist blogs for snorts and giggles...then there's the vanity blog, HuffingtonPost, that brings new meaning to inanity. This morning it caught my attention when Arianna committed a blogetiquette faux pas of "hotlinking" an image off Redstate.org. And in looking over the other "bloggers" there (are you really a blogger when you offer no means of comment?) I spied Naomi Foner's little screed about the dreaded "they".
How do they explain "a culture of life" that supports the death penalty? Freedom that denies "choice"? "Free elections" in Iraq where not everyone gets to vote? An American culture that allows for prison torture and spying on its own populace? Cut backs in Social Security and health care. Compliments for vigilantes at the border. Add it up.Naomi, doncha know, not only is a screenwriter but "has an interest in progressive politics."
Excuse me while I take a break to laugh at "progressive." Has there been a more abused euphemism for far-left causes then progressive?
I'm sure I'm one of Naomi's "Dreaded They" (DT) seeing that I would describe myself as a libertarian-leaning conservative grounded with an examined morality and appreciation of reality and history.
How do they explain "a culture of life" that supports the death penalty? Freedom that denies "choice"?
Look at her two first examples of fearful tenets of the DT -- That a "culture of life" is belied when one supports the death penality for convicted murderers AND supports the protection of unborn innocents. What does it say about her values that she supports the opposite ... allowing some of the most evil creatures among us keep what they so wantonly have taken from others, while concurrently allowing - without question, indeed without criticism or debate - the termination of innocent, nascent human life, even unto killing during birth?
It is reasonable to argue that there are flaws with the death penalty, that the appeals process is either too short/long/expensive, that reforms should be considered. There is gravitas to the argument that the DP should be either restricted to those cases in which the guilt is never in doubt or be suspended indefinitely. However, the kind of "moral absolutism" that declares state executions are not morally different from the murderer's own predations betrays the declarant's own moral ignorance or foolishness. A singular act, as in this case the taking of one human life at the hands of another, cannot be judged berift of the context in which it happens. It is context that determines the morality of singular instance. Morality demands we use our brains to render judgment. There is no morality to the statements "All killing is wrong" or "All war is wrong" because the absolutist stance precludes context and precludes judgment.
"Free elections" in Iraq where not everyone gets to vote?
Naomi dismisses the historic election in Iraq where voters defied threats against their lives, where women proudly showed off their purple fingers because "not everyone voted." She, again, refuses to consider context, where Sunni voters chose to boycott the vote. (Funny how Naomi doesn't find their "choice" a legitimate one after declaring an American woman's "choice" is sacrosanct.) Since Naomi believes the legitimacy of a vote is dependant on the percentage of voter participation, I suppose she wants Saddam back in power since he received close to 100% of the vote before liberation.
Inconvenient thing, context is, eh?
An American culture that allows for prison torture and spying on its own populace?
Naomi floats this out like a SBD flatulance event in a crowded room. Islamists videotape the slow death of sawing off an Western infidel's head while the person is screaming. "Honor" killings are tolerated in Iran and Jordan. In Saudia Arabia school girls are allowed to burn to death in a school rather than be seen outside the school with their hair showing. And American culture allows for torture? Where? When? How is this "torture" defined? What "spying" is Naomi blathering about? The survellience of Aryan supremacist groups? The tracking of criminal enterprises?
Naomi, the "progressive", ignores context yet again.
Cut backs in Social Security and health care.
Spoken like a true "progressive" who believes when reality doesn't rise as fast and far as wishful thinking, it's reality's fault.
Compliments for vigilantes at the border.
Not one, not one incident that can be remotely construed as "vigilantism" happened during the Minuteman operation in Arizona during April. They were effective in the way they said they would conduct themselves -- as a neighborhood watch operation. Where is that absolute Freedom of choice Naomi holds dear when it comes to the voluntary freedom of association of US citizens to watch for and report illegal activity?
Let's sum up Naomi's "progressive" values and views of Americans.
- Murderers are worthy of life, unborn children are not.
- American culture is one of torture and spying (Americans are the evil ones)
- The legitimacy of any foreign election is in direct proportion to its anti-Americanism. No progressive, and thus legitimate, voter would vote in an American-friendly government.
- Americans can only be trusted with "choice" when it comes to abortion, but not retirement, education or how to spend their discretionary income (if "progressives" even allow them to have discretionary income).
- Other nations/cultures/regions have the right of self-determination, but America does not. Therefore, America does not have a right to enforce a national border.
Is it any wonder they tacitly support Islamists today as they supported Communists yesterday?
Posted by Darleen at May 21, 2005 12:50 PM
Comments
I think your question was rhetorical, but I'm going to chip in my two cents anyway: No. Being a blogger is about social interaction, albeit of a mediated sort. The Huffington Post is not a blog. It's just a frequently updated Web site.
Posted by: Jeff Harrell at May 21, 2005 08:08 PM
Excellant post, kudos. And I have no opinion on the Huffington blog, because I refuse to go to the site. I have heard and seen plenty.
Posted by: Two Dogs at May 22, 2005 10:42 PM
I guess Michelle Malkin isn't a blogger either then. ;)
/Mike
Posted by: Mike at May 23, 2005 12:45 PM
I'm so glad I found this website. I teach writing, and these are great examples to use when I teach how not to use logical fallacies in rhetoric. Thank you!
Posted by: they will know you by your absurdity at June 1, 2005 03:37 PM
The anti-Americanism from within this country disturbs me greatly. It's refreshing to see common sense and rationality in well thought-out writing.
Posted by: Kenneth at June 21, 2005 09:15 AM