- Months ago, I wrote this:
At Saving Common Sense, T. Paine has fun with elected delegates to the Massachusetts Democratic convention being required to produce photo IDs to get into the hall. After all, isn't it a bit of a double standard, since many of us don't much care for requirements intended to block voting rights? Actually, if delegates are licensed drivers, they'll get in. If not, they'll be provided with credentials. Not the equivalent of efforts by Republicans to keep minorities, young people, and the elderly from casting ballots in order to prevent non-existent voter fraud.
I guess some silly equivalences never die. Chuck Thinks Right giggles at a similar requirement at the Democratic convention. "All pickup persons must have a state-issued ID that matches the name submitted below." Within the missed mix, is that the requirement is only for the person authorized by a delegation to pick up all their credentials. Conservatives once were served by occasional BillBuckleyesque ideological coherence. Now they seem to be at the mercy of little right wing mischief makers. How about this, Chuck? If a legitimate voter doesn't have a photo ID because that legal voter doesn't drive, how about accepting alternate proof of identity? giggle, giggle, tee hee.
Tim McGaha at Tim's Thoughtful Spot contrasts the two conventions and tells us why he thinks what he thinks about the outcome in November. His research is included.
Erin Nanasi, citizen of Mad Mike's America, finds unintended messages in convention presentations of candidate spouses. Ann Romney and Michelle Obama talked of the hardships of the early days of life in marriage. The message is what each regards as hardship.
- About that wounded combat veteran, the one who no longer has her legs...
What else has she done? Female, wounded veteran … ehhh. She is nothing more than a handpicked Washington bureaucrat.
That was Congressman Joe Walsh on his Democratic opponent Tammy Duckworth. Okay, Walsh is a jerk. Tommy Christopher of Mediaite fame brings a pretty good summary of the presentation of this remarkable hero to the Democratic convention. My take is here.
Ever have an argument with someone who insists the argument is actually about a completely different argument you had months ago? At moments like that we can all be thankful for, if not gun control, then bow-and-arrow control. James Wigderson walks us through the legislative equivalent in the form of charges concerning a hostile work environment. "Yes, yes, you're ticked off about street closings from way back."
Conservative Julian Sanchez takes a look at what the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution was supposed to mean, and the argument put forth by the government that nobody should have the right to sue about secret surveillance unless they can show they are the subject of secret surveillance. I wonder if dictionaries are allowed as evidence. Let's see ... secret, secret, secret, HERE it is.
T. Paine, at Saving Common Sense, tries so hard to defend discrimination against gay marriage. He quotes Catholic authorities, which pretty much proves nothing to those not already convinced. Then, unexpectedly to Christians like me, he quotes Jesus himself. Seems Jesus thought married men and women should stay married. Which proves, dontcha see, that Jesus hated gay marriage. Seems like a fun game to me. Let's see. Jesus liked figs enough to kill a fig tree that had run out of figs. Since he liked figs, he hated lobsters, right? Also, you can find lots of scripture, Red Lobster restaurants being specifically forbidden in Leviticus 11:11 and Deuteronomy 14:10. But we should all love the sinner and hate the sin. Those lobster purveyors are to be loved, despite our desperate glee that they will go to Hell. I dunno. Still seems like more hate to me. Figs or not.
Ryan at Secular Ethics provides a generous and lenient view of racism. He goes to the dictionary definition, not at all unreasonable, then goes a bit further. If policies or preferences tend to aim at excluding on the basis of race, there is no racism unless a belief that one race is inherently superior to another is explicit. My interpretation may be a misreading, of course, but Ryan would seem to be saying that there is no racism in "All humanity is created equal but, boy, do I hate them thar blacks" since it is an expression of preference, not of superiority. Separate but equal was based on a similar formulation. This is part one of Ryan's work on this sensitive subject. I wouldn't be surprised if he ties it together pretty well later on. He usually does.
Don't be fooled by a headline that mistakes the month. Nancy Hanks at The Hankster includes a link to a thoughtful analysis of how primaries restricted to party members lead to government gridlock.
The Heathen Republican makes the case that conservatives should not be presumed to be racist. He makes a good case. My take is that he is correct. There are a few exceptions, of course. Conservatives (Pat Buchanan, for example) whose conservatism is largely based on racism should be considered racist. Conservatives who advance policies whose only discernible effect is to deny rights to minorities are merely suspect. The real motivation of racist effects may only be partisan. As always, The Heathen Republican writes well, convincingly, compellingly.
- Vincent of A wayfarer's notes pays homage at finding that a neglected friend died years ago. I'm sorry that Vincent lost contact. More selfishly, I'm sorry that I didn't know his friend. Most selfishly, I'm sorry that, when I'm gone, there will probably be nobody able to write so beautifully about me. (Note: Link Corrected)
Trackback address for this post
I consider that to be an expression of racial superiority, but I guess I should edit my post to be clearer. Superiority itself is not a well-defined term. What does it mean for one race or being to be superior to another?
The main point was that accusations of racism should be reserved for actual racists, not for people who, for example, promote policies that are "racially unfair." In other words: focus on virtue instead of actions or consequences.
I dunno. I think Part 1 of almost anything can turn out to be a bit provocative, leaving some questions open until later.
You usually resolve such things in an interesting and educational manner. You've gotten my interest. Now we'll see if I can be educated.
So I have withdrawn the post, and will republish it in a suitably edited form as soon as I can.
Leave a comment
|« Introduction - Blest be the Tie That Binds||Six Versions of James Bond Race Each Other »|