Am I the only person who thinks this sounds like a middle-schooler apologising after getting into a cat-fight with her BFF in the hallway over the quarterback of the football team?
This commercial, hastily slapped together in the kerfuffle following Ms. Bachmann's appearance on Hardball where she channeled Joe McCarthy and suggested an investigation of the American-ness of members of Congress, has been running at a rate of about three hundred showings per hour in Minnesota.
Here is the Hardball clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bT01mC9xSA
And the "apology": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3_VRUHStOg
Just for the record, if I were voting in your district, Ms. Bachmann, I'd be voting for someone with a good head on his/her shoulders. I could not give a s**t about your heart. And stop making it sound like liberal government and "liberty and freedom" are mutually exclusive. They aren't, and your head knows it. Pass the message on to your heart.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Weakest Defense Ever?
And yet, probably not.
I have just read an article in the 27th October issue of "Feedstuffs" (a trade publication for the commodities industry) in which the authour of an op-ed uses the book of Genesis, from the Old Testament of the Bible, as a defense against California's Prop 2. Really. I am NOT kidding. And oh, how I wish I were.
Mr. Loos, authour of the article "Some Questions Deserve Answers" poses the thesis that "what we are failing to address is the ethics of animal agriculture" - a thesis that sounds relevant on the surface and one which would invite thoughtful, rational discourse. He continues, however, by arguing that "The 'Genesis' book of the Bible gave man dominion over animals and it is our ethical responsibility to find the best and most efficient methhods possible to convert those natural resources in to human consumable products."
I hope my cat never wanders into Mr. Loos's yard.
He continues, variously arguing that Prop 2 proponents are in favour of creating "greater gaps in the social classes" (because products become more expensive), that animal rights activists are domestic terrorists (one hopes Senator Obama is not a free-range chicken fan - I can see the attack ads now....there'd be feathers everywhere!!), and that there is hypocrisy inherent in supporting Prop 2 but still consuming animal products, including meat, leather, and medical products.
I'm possibly giving Mr. Loos too much credit by even commenting on his ridiculous article. He returns at several times to the idea that supporters of Prop 2 are irresponsible citizens because they do not focus on feeding "as many people in the world" as we can, although he offers no comment on other factors that influence global hunger - tariffs, corrupt government practices, etc.
I am certainly a proponent of ending global hunger. I do not think that this goal is mutually exclusive from humane animal treatment, however. Mr. Loos seems to miss the point completely - but perhaps he is paid by the column inch and decided to throw all the spaghetti at the wall and just see what stuck.
And really, beginning your argument with the Bible? I just don't really know what to say.
CALIFORNIA VOTERS: VOTE PROP 2 on TUESDAY
Check out http://www.joetrippi.com/ for excellent discussion of Prop 2.
I have just read an article in the 27th October issue of "Feedstuffs" (a trade publication for the commodities industry) in which the authour of an op-ed uses the book of Genesis, from the Old Testament of the Bible, as a defense against California's Prop 2. Really. I am NOT kidding. And oh, how I wish I were.
Mr. Loos, authour of the article "Some Questions Deserve Answers" poses the thesis that "what we are failing to address is the ethics of animal agriculture" - a thesis that sounds relevant on the surface and one which would invite thoughtful, rational discourse. He continues, however, by arguing that "The 'Genesis' book of the Bible gave man dominion over animals and it is our ethical responsibility to find the best and most efficient methhods possible to convert those natural resources in to human consumable products."
I hope my cat never wanders into Mr. Loos's yard.
He continues, variously arguing that Prop 2 proponents are in favour of creating "greater gaps in the social classes" (because products become more expensive), that animal rights activists are domestic terrorists (one hopes Senator Obama is not a free-range chicken fan - I can see the attack ads now....there'd be feathers everywhere!!), and that there is hypocrisy inherent in supporting Prop 2 but still consuming animal products, including meat, leather, and medical products.
I'm possibly giving Mr. Loos too much credit by even commenting on his ridiculous article. He returns at several times to the idea that supporters of Prop 2 are irresponsible citizens because they do not focus on feeding "as many people in the world" as we can, although he offers no comment on other factors that influence global hunger - tariffs, corrupt government practices, etc.
I am certainly a proponent of ending global hunger. I do not think that this goal is mutually exclusive from humane animal treatment, however. Mr. Loos seems to miss the point completely - but perhaps he is paid by the column inch and decided to throw all the spaghetti at the wall and just see what stuck.
And really, beginning your argument with the Bible? I just don't really know what to say.
CALIFORNIA VOTERS: VOTE PROP 2 on TUESDAY
Check out http://www.joetrippi.com/ for excellent discussion of Prop 2.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Use the Internets....
Look it up on The Google, people!
How is it that so many people are still so uninformed? I'm not talking about folks who have to work two jobs to pay the electric bills, or people who don't vote and don't care, but educated, intelligent (supposedly) people who are interested in the current election (or current events, or anything at all for that matter).
An example:
Billy (not his real name) confronted me earlier this week with a story he'd just seen online and he wanted me to defend Senator Obama - or he wanted me to fail trying. Apparently Billy had read on The Drudge Report, that bastion of indisputable truth, that Senator Obama favoured redistributionist practices. I hadn't seen the article, which was apparently accompanied by a short audio clip of Senator Obama on a WBEZ programme seven years ago. I couldn't respond to Billy's assertion that my pick for president favoured socialism (which delighted Billy to no end) but it didn't feel quite right.
Back at my desk, I Googled the story and was quickly directed to the WBEZ site, where the producer of Oddessy, the show in question, had posted a VERY short (about 200 word) comment on the story. It seems that the original programme had been mashed up, with sections of the comments made by Senator Obama taken rather out of context (shocking!) and posted on YouTube and the Drudge Report. I read a large section of the trasncript, enough to realise that the comments were taken very much out of context (Sen Obama argued for access to equal education and the "redistribution" of funds that would lead to equality).
Armed with this information, I dropped Billy a short note and included the link to the WBEZ site. I asked Billy to have a quick read and re-think his opinion on the story.
He didn't.
He outright refused to read the 200 words - he couldn't be asked to take five minutes to read the truth, straight from the producers mouth. His view was that while The Drudge Report might not be right, WBEZ might be un-truthful as well. I pointed out the transcript, readily available online, and the full radio programme - but no, Billy was interested in taking the time. And he was pretty sure my side was lying.
This shocks me. I don't know why; it certainly isn't the first time I've encountered this lack of interest in information (yes, I'm looking at you, Mr. Still President Bush).
BUT I AM STILL SHOCKED. That someone would CHOOSE to believe what he knows may not be true instead of taking a minute amount of time to do a quick fact check - to confirm or disabuse his original notions - absolutely f**king baffles me.
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE?!
Seriously, send your answers. If we know what causes the problem, we can figure out how to fix it.
How is it that so many people are still so uninformed? I'm not talking about folks who have to work two jobs to pay the electric bills, or people who don't vote and don't care, but educated, intelligent (supposedly) people who are interested in the current election (or current events, or anything at all for that matter).
An example:
Billy (not his real name) confronted me earlier this week with a story he'd just seen online and he wanted me to defend Senator Obama - or he wanted me to fail trying. Apparently Billy had read on The Drudge Report, that bastion of indisputable truth, that Senator Obama favoured redistributionist practices. I hadn't seen the article, which was apparently accompanied by a short audio clip of Senator Obama on a WBEZ programme seven years ago. I couldn't respond to Billy's assertion that my pick for president favoured socialism (which delighted Billy to no end) but it didn't feel quite right.
Back at my desk, I Googled the story and was quickly directed to the WBEZ site, where the producer of Oddessy, the show in question, had posted a VERY short (about 200 word) comment on the story. It seems that the original programme had been mashed up, with sections of the comments made by Senator Obama taken rather out of context (shocking!) and posted on YouTube and the Drudge Report. I read a large section of the trasncript, enough to realise that the comments were taken very much out of context (Sen Obama argued for access to equal education and the "redistribution" of funds that would lead to equality).
Armed with this information, I dropped Billy a short note and included the link to the WBEZ site. I asked Billy to have a quick read and re-think his opinion on the story.
He didn't.
He outright refused to read the 200 words - he couldn't be asked to take five minutes to read the truth, straight from the producers mouth. His view was that while The Drudge Report might not be right, WBEZ might be un-truthful as well. I pointed out the transcript, readily available online, and the full radio programme - but no, Billy was interested in taking the time. And he was pretty sure my side was lying.
This shocks me. I don't know why; it certainly isn't the first time I've encountered this lack of interest in information (yes, I'm looking at you, Mr. Still President Bush).
BUT I AM STILL SHOCKED. That someone would CHOOSE to believe what he knows may not be true instead of taking a minute amount of time to do a quick fact check - to confirm or disabuse his original notions - absolutely f**king baffles me.
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE?!
Seriously, send your answers. If we know what causes the problem, we can figure out how to fix it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)