En Tequila Es Verdad/progressive conservatism/post/2009/05/24/0843

May 24, 2009 8:43 AM - Woozle

Woozle said...

Re Hollywood:

"Show me Republicans saying, “We hate poor people.”"

I didn't say they said that. What I said was that they say "tough luck, loser" -- let me know if you need examples.

I think Republicans must actually love poor people very much, because they seem to want to make more of them all the time. They love poor people becuase they know poor people can be more easily manipulated than people who have all their basic needs and are reasonably well-educated. They love poor people because they know poor people will do more work for less money, and won't complain about being bossed around, and "know their place".

Republican leaders depend heavily on poor people to help maintain republican leader lifestyles, and to vote for republican leaders out of subservience and ignorance, and to believe (because they don't have the time or understanding to read otherwise) that they themselves are also republicans, whose interests will be protected and cared for by the republican leaders they help elect.

"Just because people in Hollywood don't vocalize it doesn't mean that out-of-wedlock births aren't becoming normalized."

Not the same thing as "celebrating" them.

"And despite your celebration of the wonderful tapestry of diversity, out-of-wedlock births are generally to blame for a host of social problems." (slightly corrected)

In Hollywood??

Some out-of-wedlock births are a problem, but only when the mother doesn't have access to adequate resources. Many are not a problem at all, and many in-wedlock births end up being a problem either because of divorce or due to other problems with the family.

I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make, though. Ann Coulter says Hollywood (and presumably she's aiming this at liberals) celebrate out-of-wedlock births. Presumably she means this is a bad thing, and liberals should be ashamed of themselves for doing so. Why is it a bad thing? I'm guessing it's because she believes out-of-wedlock births are such an overwhelming problem that... something something. I can't quite figure it out, except by the usual conservative guilt-by-association logic of "X causes problems and is unconventional, therefore you must hate and despise it or you are a Damned Liberal trying to destroy marriage and our society".

You haven't established that Coulter was telling the truth here... but I'm willing to explore this claim in a hypothetical sense, because maybe we can learn something more about the nature of conservatism.

So tell, me, Mike, why would it be bad to celebrate out-of-wedlock childbirth?

--

Re Clinton: no he didn't. He admitted that it might look that way from a present-day vantage point (6 months ago), but he flatly denied (earlier in the interview) that the problem was rooted in acts of his administration, and further argues that the crisis didn't really "take off" until the SEC under Bush relaxed oversight and removed the "uptick rule", thus enabling some of the worst behaviors which clearly did play a part in the crisis.

This is what we addled liberals refer to as "quoting out of context", and it's a no-no for polite dialog.

"Palin tried to get people to riot against you? You're more popular than I thought!" It's a mystery to me, too... but I'm a member of at least two different groups that Palin and her ilk seem to be out to get (as in physically intimidate and threaten, and possibly kill a few just to make an example for the rest). It's a popularity I can live without, thanks.

To be continued... I now officially H8 the new gods-be-damned 4,096-character limit. If Sarah Palin or Ann Coulter would like to start a hate-group devoted to threatening and intimidating whoever thought it was a good idea, I'm there. I'll bring along my posters of botched and aborted comments.

source

May 24, 2009 8:45 AM - Woozle

Woozle said...

PART TWO

"I don't think anyone argues that petroleum is vital to the survival of worldwide populations. At the end of the day it's a luxury item. If it went away tomorrow, goods would still get where they need to, just perhaps a little slower (a good-sized chunk of the U.S. navy seems to be doing pretty well on nuclear)."

Okay, Mike, you've gone over the edge on this one. Are you seriously arguing that there would not be major worldwide consequences if all the oil wells suddenly ran dry?

"As for personal preference, I suspect you know what my reply to that is."I'm not sure I do, Mike... I wouldn't want to presume that you would be so callous as to completely dismiss someone's opinion as totally irrelevant just because you don't happen to agree with it, so I can only think that you mean something else.

"I'm curious as to how a higher birthrate in SF would affect, let's say, Thailand?"Probably none at all... but you were the one who seemed to be worrying about a tragic decline in the population of SF due to the presence of too many gay people.

Obviously we need more gay people in Thailand and China, too... but it would probably be unethical to try and induce it via genetic manipulation, so we'll just have to go the old-fashioned way and reduce overpopulation by encouraging proper sex education and a higher standard of living. Sometimes traditional solutions just work best.

" source