Why No Posts Lately?
It's a combination of being busy at my real job and being not particularly interested in most of the debates that have been raging in the blogosphere lately. For the record, though, Rick Warren is a wanker and I wish he didn't have a role in the inauguration.
I'll get back to posting before long.
posted by A.L. at 10:21 AM
14 Comments:
C'mon, we all want AL's take on Rod Blagojevich, Caroline Kennedy, the decision making that led to Time magazine's selection of Person of the Year, Madonna's divorce, the cold snap, Obama's most obscure cabinet choice, the pending Screen Actors strike, etc.
Lack of interest by AL is no excuse for the absence of posts.
I've been in the work mode too - I sympathize!
Agree on Warren...
agree on warren, too. but really, why have an invocation at all. one wanker spouting mythology is as good or bad as the next i suppose. all that said, P-e O's political calculation is amazing. get back to work!
Are you interested in the cultures, literatures, languages, traditions and realities of Central and Eatern Europe?
Visit the website of CASA DE L'EST in Barcelona, Spain, and our Forum & Bibliography database:
http://www.casadelest.org
Hmm, suppose John McCain had won the election and he invited a liberal cleric, say Rev. Joseph Lowery, to pray at his inauguration. Would you view this as divisive or inclusive? Suppose some conservative activists had objected to the selection (and some would have) on the grounds that Lowery's views on abortion and gay marriage are unacceptable? Would you view them as acting in a principled fashion? Or would you have called them intolerant bigots? Suppose they called Lowery a "wanker"?
Implicit in MLS's question is the isometry in the goals of the two sides. This is ridiculous on the face of it.
In addition, if Lowery had, in many ways, demonized, say, the followers of Pat Robertson, then there might be some equivalence. Since said reverend has not, but is, all reports, the very soul of tolerance, the equivalence falls flat on its face.
That some like MLS imagine they have a right to be indignant over a person's tolerance, but that others have no right to be indignant over someone's openly expressed intolerance pretty much tells all you need to know.
C2H50H
I don’t understand your concept of “tolerance.” Accepting people who agree with you, or whose behavior you think is moral, is not “tolerance.” If you think that homosexuality is perfectly moral and acceptable behavior, there is nothing to tolerate. If you are an atheist, it isn’t tolerance to accept the right of others not to believe in God.
If you think that people on the “other side” are unworthy of tolerance, that’s fine. If you think that Obama should use the power of the presidency to marginalize social conservatives, evangelical Christians, Catholics, Mormons and anyone else who holds views you find repugnant, say so. If you find it offensive that Obama should listen to the prayers of someone like Rick Warren, that’s ok too.
Just don’t call your position “tolerant” and don’t demand that people on the “other side” tolerate you.
MLS,
Of course you don't understand the concept of "tolerance." That was obvious from your earlier comment.
Can you comprehend that intolerance is not worthy of tolerance? It doesn't seem that you can.
You can preach to me about a lack of "tolerance" when you find me expressing, for example, the view that mormons, jehovah's witnesses, abortion opponents, or the members of Rick Warren's megachurch should be denied some of the rights and privileges the rest of us enjoy.
Rick Warren isn't simply exercising a right -- he's being given a national podium. For my part, I don't care who is chosen to placate an imaginary being, but I understand the concern of those who do care.
I happen to strongly disagree with Rick Warren's anti-gay views. He has caused many people, gays and friends of gays, real pain. I must say that as a personal matter, I hate Rick Warren mostly for his opposition to stem-cell research. I recently watched a loved one die from a disease that might well have had better medical treatments, had stem cell research not been slowed down by Bush in August 2001. So Warren's opposition to stem-cell research, just like his support of Prop. 8, has caused real pain to real people. Still, amazingly enough, I am willing to admit that it may be a good thing that Obama is reaching out to Warren. The partisan divisions are now SUPER SUPER POISONOUS. And the economy is in trouble. This may be a time to reach out to all kinds of people. It might just enable cooperation on some things. So I have mixed feelings about Obama's choice of Warren.
Babyming- duly noted.
Merry Christmas to all.
I've long felt that the left blogosphere, to which I have been addicted for eight years, owed its vitality to George W. Bush, and that with his passing it would fade considerably. That is what is happening now, I think.
Come on Bob, it's a bit soon to make that claim, don't you think? Call me an optimist, but while I understand the whole "nothing to rebel against" argument, I find that blogging for many people is simply far easier way to be active in political discussions than any popular forum previously as it allows people to participate and share their own opinions. Talk radio [unfortunately] didn't die when Bush was in office. I don't expect liberal blogging to go anywhere either.
First, to Bob Hall, I was worried about the same thing -- and more that the (deserved) relentless opposition to Bush would get us in a position where we'd forgotten how to be positive. But judging from the blogs I read, this just isn't happening.
To AL: Understand your business, but if you can squeeze out time for a post, I wish you'd make it on the Burris nomination -- which could be, if Obama backs down, his DADT moment, the signal that he was so insecure of his political capital he wouldn't get into a fight he might lose.
DADT symbolized the end of the hopes many of us had for Clinton -- not because of the topic entirely, but because it showed he was afraid of a fight and of even the possibility of losing -- and the Republicans took full advantage of this over the next 8 years.
Obama may lose the fight against seating Burris, but that won't cost him half as much as if he doesn't make it.
I would also be interested in your thoughts on the Burris appointment. Not sure that I understand Jim Benton's take on this. Is he against seating Burris? If so, why? IMHO, the Constitution entitles Burris to be seated, in the absence of any evidence that his appointment was corrupt (as opposed to evidence that the guy who appointed him is corrupt).
As for Obama, I fail to see how Mr. One President at a Time has anything to do with this. He resigned his Senate seat, and has no constitutional role in this matter. Of course, he has the same rights as any of us to express his opinion, but he could also voice his opinion on, say, the Middle East, which is a subject on which his views are rather more important.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home