“We’re the Smart Ones. . .”

27 01 2010

We’re the smart ones.
We’re the ones who are “reality-based.”
We can win without being counterproductive.
We can figure it out.

Put it on t-shirts, embroider it on pillows, whisper it to teeth-gnashing, garment-rending fellows as needed . . .

Advertisements

Actions

Information

18 responses

27 01 2010
JJ

And hold it close to your heart as you watch the State of the Union tonight! 🙂

28 01 2010
Nance Confer

It didn’t help. I’m still in a pissed off and waiting to see if anything decent — in every sense — can get accomplished any time soon mood.

Nance

28 01 2010
Crimson Wife

Is that little ditty meant to be tongue in cheek? ‘Cause if not, it’s coming off as just a wee bit on the arrogant side. If liberals hope to win over moderates, they need to give up the superiority complex…

29 01 2010
JJ

No, dead serious and not a ditty. It’s the end of a serious column laying out the author’s argument, exhorting progressives and liberals to remember they’re smart and not act dumb, politically speaking — try the hotlink to read.

And I guess the author would be baffled by CW’s feedback, perhaps respond he sees the Left showing troublesome signs of an INferiority complex rather than arrogance, also that winning over moderates was already done during the campaign which is why this president is now in position to exasperate them as much as he’s done. 😉

29 01 2010
Nance Confer

Winning over moderates? That has amounted to giving Rs and DINOs everything they want, so far. Not what those of us on the left thought we were voting for.

Nance

29 01 2010
Nance Confer

And since when is being smart a bad thing? If the other side can’t understand or even acknowledge something — like, let’s say, science — and your side can. . . smart is better than dumb.

Nance

29 01 2010
JJ

Not recognizing and reconciling the real meaning behind all the words we mouth as we clash, is such a big part of the problem. Moderate e.g. is not necessarily the same as independent, but it’s so easy to use them interchangeably because if all you can imagine is a line segmented like a ruler (or for the really creative, a Venn diagram with three overlapping sets?) there’s clearly a Left party and Right party, so everybody not in one or the other must be in the middle between them — in reality, not at all! Other political words are all bolloxed up too, even Left and Right R and D. We had a whole section of the NHEN forums devoted to “What’s in a Name?” and I have a well-used blog category for it here too.

What is objectively murder, under the law and/or ethically, do the ethics and law definitions match and when they don’t, who gets to impose the definition, in a free society? The murder verdict today against an admitted doctor killer had to overcome his personal twisting of the term to justify himself as saving life FROM murder, by murder. Some of the same people who agree with him on that will accept the new twisted definition of “investigative journalism” given by this bad actor-accused felon out on bail insisting against all reason he’s the only one who gets to define it, claiming all the major news organizations all are wrong and slanted, while only he is fair and ethical. And what is a homeschooler — Neil DeGrasse Tyson was on my car radio just now, discussing whether and why Pluto (and heavenly bodies generally) should be considered a “planet” — in intellectually lively and refreshing fashion, examining why it’s a complex and interesting question worth studying and discussing to learn about, not something to just fight about!

p.s. Remember when we did the “choose a new religion” essays and I chose Frisbeetarianism? Here’s a fun (and factual!) new story about words like that, at NPR.

29 01 2010
JJ

At the end btw, Tyson talked explicitly about school science and how wrong it was to teach it as simple lists of memorized facts (that are not really facts in the first place) such as there are nine planets and here are their names. He says even if the answers were factual, that would not be “science.”

We all agree we are “free” to keep tearing each other down and beating each other up by using words to obfuscate rather than illuminate our challenges and ideas to address them, but it seems to me a wide majority of Americans regardless of labels also agree that’s not ethical, not smart and therefore isn’t good citizenship.

29 01 2010
JJ

Wow, did you see that whole “question time in Parliament” style session between the House GOP and the President?? Or maybe it was more like gladiator-and-lions? One commentator on tv just mentioned “steel cage death match” politics . . .

[addendum: and here’s a HuffPo correspondent using my other analogies, hey, I must be GOOD!]

29 01 2010
Nance Confer

I saw big parts of it. And I’m very encouraged! Speaking truth to whatever all those white men in suits think they are. Lovely.

Nance

29 01 2010
JJ

The Bolshevik Plot line was great, heard that delivered live . . .

And I read he was doing so well, FOX news cut it off 20 minutes early. 😉

30 01 2010
JJ

Asked who won today’s face-off, [GOP pollster Frank] Luntz said something that people on both sides would agree with.

“I call it in favor of the American people,” Luntz said. “I think it was good for everybody. I’ve never seen this before. I’ve never seen the President of one party interacting with the other party.””

30 01 2010
JJ

Now there’s a factual dispute over Tim Tebow’s anti-abortion story set to air as a SuperBowl commercial, have you seen this? Abortion was illegal in the Catholic-dominated Phillippines with prison terms as penalty, when Tebow family doctors supposedly were advising it:

Allred asks [Les Mooves of CBS] to get a clear grasp of the correct and true facts in this case . . .

“This is not just another ad. Women’s lives are at stake. . .”

She says that she hopes she never sees the ad on air, but if she does she “hopes that the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission will be watching it and evaluating it for misleading advertising too.”

Allred warns, “If this ad airs and fails to disclose that abortions were illegal at the time Ms. Tebow made her “choice”, then I intend to file a formal complaint of misleading advertising with those federal commissions.”

On a final note Allred says that she hopes that if any of the women that watch the ad are in the position of evaluating their own pregnancy options, that they “get all the facts before you make a decision. Don’t let any other person influence you. You are going to live with the consequences of that choice for the rest of your life. Make sure it’s your choice and you feel confident you can live with that choice for the rest of your life.”

30 01 2010
JJ

More on the Tebow “pro-family religious advocacy ad” being broadcast: what do we mean by that and are we fair to all Americans in our thinking, or biased?

In 2004, CBS famously rejected a commercial from the United Church of Christ, citing a solid policy against running any advertising that

“touches on and/or takes a position on one side of a current controversial issue.”

The UCC commercial’s message was “inclusiveness,” and featured a gay couple attempting to enter a house of worship but being turned away by a bouncer. The “controversial” tagline of the ad was “Jesus Didn’t Turn People Away. Neither Do We,” a sentiment supported by every Gospel of the New Testament.

The tagline of the Focus on the Family ad is reportedly “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life,” a perky, wholesome slogan that neatly doubles as coded rallying cry for the rabid, occasionally violent anti-choice movement. [violent anti-choice, as in the doctor-murder guilty verdict this very week?]

The response from the United Church of Christ was swift and to the point. On their website, they addressed the situation by noting that

“”Because of its own economic circumstances, CBS is affording time to one religious organization while having suppressed another. This sounds as if the broadcasters think they own the airwaves when, in theory at least, they do not”

. . .When first challenged on the obvious hypocrisy of accepting one religious organization’s commercial while rejecting another, CBS was cooly dismissive, replying that it would not comment on past decisions, an obvious reference to their ban on UCC’s inclusiveness commercial.

3 02 2010
Crimson Wife

Just because something is against the law does not mean that it isn’t readily available. I can think of any number of illegal goods or services that I could easily obtain within 24 hours should I desire them- narcotics, prostitution, phony ID’s, counterfeit goods, etc.

Wikipedia cites a study from the medical journal International Family Planning Perspectives estimating the annual number of abortions in the Philippines in 1994 at 400,000. That would suggest that plenty of Filipino doctors are quietly offering their patients abortions the same as happened here in the U.S. prior to the legalization of abortion…

3 02 2010
JJ

Fair point. So I guess these were not doctors who shared her religious beliefs and were in fact criminals. A strange kind of criminal willing to risk years in jail to help her (in their view) though — so I wonder if she felt compelled by CHristian conscience to turn them in, or otherwise stop them from the baby-killing, then or at least since then?

And if not, is that what she is admitting in this story, that she never acted to stop it? Is that what CBS is endorsing, dodging criminal conspiracies from the medical profession to win football games and elections, etc.? It just doesn’t sound like a very uplifting message to me no matter what!

3 02 2010
Nance Confer

It’s the imposition of her and her son’s fringe religious beliefs on a “sacred” secular event in American civil society. It’s rude and crude. And so out of step with the career path Tebow’s handlers have so carefully crafted.

And the point of abortion services being illegal there and then was not that she could have found an abortion if she had looked. It was that, like many American and other women in the same situation, she made a choice only in the sense that the other choice was possible prison. It was not a choice based solely on health issues or even her religious beliefs. Threatening a woman with prison in that situation, one way or the other, is unconscionable.

Nance

4 02 2010
JJ

“If they betrayed us, we faced prison, death. We led double lives.”

CW is right that there are many criminalized choices not stopped by being criminal, but this isn’t a quote about drugs or prostitution. And it’s not about illegal private choice by mothers about children, much less LEGAL family and life choices.

Does this family’s administratively illegal education choice make the mom a public menace, a dangerous felon subject to a maximum 80 years in prison on multiple fraud counts?

It’s about Catholic law forbidding women a sacred life choice/calling just because they are women, and the threat against women who dare to break that law comes from Church itself.

I woke up to local radio news of the first two women Catholic priests in Florida making news. One just received a letter about how she was breaking church law and endangering her soul by risking her communion with the Church. In response, the female priest being interviewed told the story of “Ludmilla” who was ordained to help save the Church under Communism, sent into a woman’s prison to perform banned Catholic rites at risk of torture and death herself —

. . .while male prisoners could at least sometimes receive the sacraments clandestinely from one of the many priests who had been imprisoned by the Communists, the hundreds of nuns and other Catholic women prisoners who languished in Communist jails could not: they were not allowed male visitors. In these exceptional circumstances Davidek was convinced that the clandestine Church needed women priests to visit women in prison and administer the sacraments to them secretly.

. . .Half the bishops and priests rejected women’s ordination and broke away to form a separate group. . . . Ludmila found herself rejected by many of her fellow priests, and sometimes was publicly and cruelly insulted by them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: