Comments on: Kathleen Parker: More Right Than Wrong

By: Kathleen Parker is nobody’s useful idiot « An American Lion

Kathleen Parker is nobody’s useful idiot « An American Lion — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:28:36 +0000

[...] why the wheels have come off the conservative movement. The emperor has no clothes, you see, and American conservatives are running around as if it’s cool beans to be bareassed naked. It is not, and some of us get it. Many do [...]

By: blackoutyears

blackoutyears — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:40:03 +0000

Pedro, religion helped save my wife’s life, so I’m a little more reluctant to indulge in blanket condemnation. I have strong doubts, but in a practical sense Christianity and its missions have also been responsible for some good. Meybe even a lot.

By: pedro

pedro — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:12:18 +0000

You eggheads are being too easy on Christianity, which condemns us to etermal torment for succumbing to human frailties. In the name of God, Christians have murdered millions of people, infected minds with moronic lies and boring rituals and wasted billions of dollars on churches rather than supporting the poor. Worse, they’ve unleashed upon the world a badly written book, incorrect as either history or truth, and which glorifies an absentee and cruel god. I’m just a crusty ex-Marine and don’t go in for much high level debate. But I’m smart enough to know a con when I see one. Religion is a blight on humanity, worse than dysentery, because its victims remain unaware of reality and waste their lives praying to statues.

By: blackoutyears

blackoutyears — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:11:35 +0000

Kranky, it’s even a little odder than I had time to post because part of the arranegement (and yes, this seems to have been a bid by eH to avoid litigation) involves their paying $50K to the New Jersey attorney general and $5K to the individual who brought the suit. Now, does eH have to offer this service nationwide because a gay man in NJ sued them? Because this involves teh internets we have some interesting issues with state lines, litigation from one state setting the agenda (I can imagine a countersuit from Utah or Kansas if gay-friendly dating pops up on thier eH site), etc. eHarmony did the expedient thing, which is too bad. I’m not someone who runs around shouting tort reform at the top of my lungs but I can see why some do. When it’s cheaper as a business to surrender your freedoms than to defend them, we’re jumping the shark.

This is exactly the sort of thing that fuels the outrage of conservatives, social and/or constitutional (and rightly so), and it’s an excellent example of why I may vote for more Democrats than Republicans but remain an independent. I mean, the absurdity. It’s like walking down a street with twenty bars, one of which doesn’t serve *your kind*, and insisting that you should be allowed to patronize that bar. I understand that we are a perverse people, but sheesh…

Any of the gay posters here want to weigh in? Maybe I’m pushing ideology at the expense of sensitivity?

By: kranky kritter

kranky kritter — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:54:47 +0000

Well, thanks for participating in the spirit I was thinking, blackout. As you have understood, I didn’t intend my quick list to be a substantive match, only a quick illustration of what is possible.

That’s a good example. Notice too the other problem with your example, which is that you can use a lawyer to bully someone and get your way. Most likely the creepy folks at EHarmony understood that it would be much cheaper to set up a few spreadsheets for gay folks than to fight the lawsuit. Notice now that it will be very hard for the same folks to sue eharmony if they only make a half-hearted token effort. Notice further that the same gay folks who sued who be far better served, as you have I think implied, by a dating outfit that is truly motivated to serve gay interests and truly understands their issues.

Let’s do some more suing. How about all those customers at eharmony who are discriminating by expressing all sorts of preferences? If equality is so important, don’t poor ugly fat people deserve dates with rich attractive ones? And what right does a homosexual woman, for example, have to deny a man the right to date her? Isn’t she discriminating?

After all, it’s what’s inside that matters. Shouldn’t we al be forced to behave as though that were the gospel truth? :-)

By: blackoutyears

blackoutyears — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:32:50 +0000

Kranky, I found one for you hot off the presses. Discrimination lawsuit forces eHarmony to offer a same-sex dating site. Talk about dangerous precedents. The WSJ story wonders if *…other services that target a niche clientele could be forced to expand their business models.* I would think the abundance of sites which do cater to same-sex dating would provide ample alternatives and I’m somewhat surprised that eHarmony caved instead of pursuing that line or a prudent man argument. I always felt it was bad business to shut out a whole class of customer, but since when is that illegal?

By: mike mcEachran

mike mcEachran — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:40:30 +0000

I would also add: the reli-cons war on science in general, especially relating to global warming. To equivocate the consequences of the religious rights’ perverted stone-aged agenda to some of the silliness of the politically correct is short-sighted, and appologetic. The “god-fearing do-gooders” are doing real damage and not just to the GOP. The influence of voo-doo believers does not belong in the 21st Century. Period. Let’s welcome back scientific reason, and show these Neaderthal’s to the door.

By: blackoutyears

blackoutyears — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:20:22 +0000

I’d also add, that the Democratic Party isn’t held in sway to the silliness of a school who sends home a kid with a squirt gun or the people who think that’s the right thing to do, while the GOP is objectively being dragged down by its pandering to the stem cell/abortion/school prayer/commandments/marriage amendment crowd. As abrogations of my *freedom* go I’ll take higher taxes over lifestyle/marriage/right to die offenses any time.

By: blackoutyears

blackoutyears — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:15:25 +0000

Those are funny examples, Kranky, but how many of them relate to a movement to enforce sweeping change on the country’s schools, court rooms, bedrooms, marriage licenses, hospitals, pharmacies? A true comparison is going to have to dig a little bit deeper than well-meaning idiocy of the isolated incidents you mention. Probably more along the lines of the impact of PC and liberal ideology on newsrooms, college classrooms, etc.

By: kranky kritter

kranky kritter — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:07:16 +0000

That’s a great list. In particular, I resonate with the part about being tired of having these views pushed on me.

However, I have no doubt that any conservative worth his or her salt could quite easily come up with a “greatest hits of the secular Politically Correct” crowd. Nor do I doubt that it would curl my hair in a similar fashion. Things like public funding for piss christ, sending 6 year olds home from school for bringing a squirt gun for show and tell, and suspending a teenager for carrying rogue advil in her purse are just a trio that leap to mind within seconds. And that’s probably just some misdemeanor stuff in conservative eyes.

So let’s see who can come up with that list. And then we’d be off on another fun round of comparative political demonology, CPD.

By: Trescml

Trescml — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:45:01 +0000

The discussion between Parker and her critics demonstrates the major issue. The Republicans are having great difficulty of discussing the future of the party without using the same scorched earth rhetoric they use in campaigns.

If they keep tearing each other up like this, there is going to be a longer period the Democrats in power.