I mean, honestly: How could any conservative with a scintilla of common sense not be?
With Bush’s approval ratings at lethal lows, with the GOP chokehold on government apparently threatened, with civilians and soldiers dying at a stunning rate in Iraq, gas prices through the roof, citizens being spied on, the courts and politicians finally taking a long hard look at Bush’s historic power grabs…NOW Bush et al suddeny haul out a marriage amendment? NOW?
I mean, yes, the ploy worked wonders in energizing the conservative base and getting votes out in 2004 in a dazzling, multi-state display of voting bigotry. But no one’s mentioned it in two years. Suddenly, NOW, they announce that “marriage is under attack” and start talking about adding the first amendment since prohibition (which, y’know, worked out so well) that would restrict freedoms rather than expand them. It could not possibly be a more obvious gambit to try and appeal to the many voters who have had buyers’ remorse ever since they voted for Bush and the GOP in 2004 and slowly came to the realization they’d been hosed. It’s genuinely insulting to conservative voters’ intelligence, that their leaders think they’re THAT easily manipulated. That they’re going to overlook the very real assault that our soldiers are under, needlessly, in Iraq, because of the fake assault that the institution of marriage is allegedly under.
Is it that Bush et al believe that conservatives must be monumentally stupid because the fact that conservatives voted for them proves it?
I’ve said it before but it bears repeating: If politicians are really worried about marriage being undermined, the key is not to prevent people from getting married. It’s to make it difficult-to-impossible to get divorced. But they’ll never do that because Bush and his cronies aren’t REALLY concerned about marriage being under attack. They’re worried their numbers are under attack. But they’re clinging to the notion that conservatives are Just That Stupid that they’ll fall for this crap a second time.
The question is, will they?
PAD
• 
I see nothing in your last post to distinguish you from Ann Coulter.
Well, there’s an easy way to distinguish my posts from hers: she has an Adam’s apple.
Pretty simple, I thought.
Want some more distinguishment?
I’ve never called for Bush to be assassinated. I’ve never called for federal judges to be killed. I’ve never called for conservatives to be murdered.
Guess what? Rall hasn’t done those things either.
I think the equating of Ted Rall with Ann Coulter is unfair. Rall has a sharp edge to his humor, but (a) he’s often quite funny, and (b) he’s often quite intelligent.
Read, for example, his book To Afghanistan And Back. One does not need to agree with his opinions to find merit both in the comics-format account of his time there and in his accompanying essay. I can think of nothing comparable that Coulter has said or written.
Here’s a link to Rall’s book at Amazon.com, for those interested in checking it out. (I hope I got the coding right for the link…)
Nope, apparently that’s not how one posts a link. Try this instead: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1561633259/102-4315353-3557718?v=glance&n=283155
I think the equating of Ted Rall with Ann Coulter is unfair. Rall has a sharp edge to his humor, but (a) he’s often quite funny, and (b) he’s often quite intelligent.
I wholeheartedly agree.
There are times when I don’t agree with what Rall says, and there are times when I agree with some of the stuff Coulter says.
It’s just that Coulter has that way of pìššìņg me off, especially when she has to get those “low blows” at liberals, even when such cheap shots are not in the least bit relevant to whatever it is she’s writing about.
If liberals disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow, she’d probably be at a loose end, and, let’s face it, that’s not sign of a good political commentator, no matter which side you’re on.
But Rall is smart, funny, and, unlike Coulter as far as I know, knowledgeable of the world at large, since he has been to war zones and other countries that most journalists & the media here outright ignore (such as Kryzgstan).
Nova, your link didn’t work, so I’d just recommend people go to Amazon.com and do a books search for ‘Ted Rall’. You’ll find his stuff easily enough then.
The thing I love about Rall is that, unlike the media and many liberals in general, he hasn’t keeled over and died from the ridiculous onslaughts from the Right in recent years.
pointing out that her millionaire boy Bush has spent the last six years grinningly exploiting 9/11 for his personal gain
“The next time a Republican wraps himself in 9/11 or uses a soldier as a prop — the next time Bush watches a 9/11 movie with 9/11 families, the next time he invites the father of a fallen soldier to join him in throwing out a first pitch, the next time he participates in a staged chat with troops in the field, the next time his party holds its national political convention within shouting distance of ground zero, the next time the mother of a fallen soldier turns up in Laura Bush’s box at the State of the Union address, the next time Cheney suggests that questioning the president’s Iraq policy somehow equates to undercutting the troops — remember this: It’s the Democrats, not the Republicans, who do this sort of thing. Just ask Ann Coulter.”
— Tim Grieve, Salon.com
Luigi Novi: And by “essentially”, do you mean that you interpreting his words to mean what you want it to mean? I ask, because he makes no such indications in the works of his that I have read. It would be easy for him to say that there are many like this (which arguably there are), and then have you twist that into “all.”
You would know, as you’re proven to be the master of twisting what other people have said and making it say whatever you want it mean.
Don’t think I’ve forgotten how you accused me of being two separate people and lying about it.
Den: Horowitz clearly has an agenda and that’s to get more conservative views dominant on college campuses.
Luigi Novi: Oh, the horror! Imagine wanting students and others with conservative views to have the same freedom to state such views without fear of reprisal as those with liberal ones! The unmitigated nerve of him! Doesn’t he know that colleges are supposed to be “liberals only” places of indoctrination?
Case in point: I never said that college campuses should be places for “liberals only.” I only said that Horowitz wants them to be dominated by conversatives instead of liberals.
Posted by Craig J. Ries at June 10, 2006 02:10 PM
Well, there’s an easy way to distinguish my posts from hers: she has an Adam’s apple.
Sorry Craig, but that’s a pretty Coulter-like tactic.
Pretty simple, I thought.
Simple, but ineffective, as it did nothing to distinguish your rhetoric from Coulter’s.
Want some more distinguishment?
That would be nice.
I’ve never called for Bush to be assassinated. I’ve never called for federal judges to be killed. I’ve never called for conservatives to be murdered.
OK, so you’ve found an area where she goes further than you do. That still doesn’t change the fact that many of your rhetorical tricks are identical to Coulter’s: ad hominem attacks that lack any basis in fact.
I’ve noticed that you still haven’t answered my challenge to show any evidence that Bill Mulligan is a devotee of Coulter’s, Limbaugh’s, or O’Reilly’s. That’s because you probably can’t. So rather than acknowledge that you’re losing the core argument, you try to change the subject.
Guess what? Rall hasn’t done those things either.
Guess what? Bill Mulligan made Coulter sound worse than Rall. So why are we even discussing this? Because you were trying to pick a fight with an honorable guy over something he never said, by accusing him of things you can’t prove.
It would make more sense to just admit that you were having a knee-jerk reaction and attacked Mulligan without cause. I mean, I’ve admitted my own mistakes in this board and guess what? It hasn’t made me weak. In fact, it’s earned me some people’s respect.
ad hominem attacks that lack any basis in fact.
Dude, go look at a picture of her (if you have the stomach to do so).
So rather than acknowledge that you’re losing the core argument, you try to change the subject.
See the very first reply to this thread by Bill Mulligan. I think the argument is there, contrary to what you believe.
He very much comes off as a right-wing devotee and ended up doing little with his posts, particularly that first one, to change the notion that he’s any different than the rest of the mindless cattle who follow O’Reilly, Rush, and Coulter.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at June 11, 2006 01:40 AM
See the very first reply to this thread by Bill Mulligan. I think the argument is there, contrary to what you believe.
There was no “argument” there. You got angry that Bill characterized Rall’s opinions as “bile.” You then declared that Rall is right, as though your declaration should be enough for all of us, which it isn’t.
You then accused Bill of being a devotee of Limbaugh, O’Reilly, and Coulter, even though Bill condemned Ann Coulter in his last post. I mean, go back and read it. He says the difference between Rall and Coulter is that Rall “believes” his “bile.” The inescapable implication is that Coulter spews “bile” as well.
You’re arguing with a man who agrees with you about how awful Ann Coulter is. Unfortunately, that seems to fly in the face of your limited worldview, wherein conservatives and liberals never agree because that’s just how things are. So rather than acknowledge an inescapable reality, you’ve created a straw man with which to argue in order to maintain your false worldview.
Sad.
He very much comes off as a right-wing devotee and ended up doing little with his posts, particularly that first one, to change the notion that he’s any different than the rest of the mindless cattle who follow O’Reilly, Rush, and Coulter.
In the interests of full disclosure, I have developed a friendship with Bill Mulligan and have great respect for him. I noticed during our first exchanges in this blog that even though he tends to be conservative and I tend to be liberal, he was able to treat my views with respect and maintain an open mind. So I’m probably not as dispassionate about this issue as I’d prefer to be.
Nevertheless, I believe I can objectively say that Bill Mulligan is not “mindless cattle,” and I take great exception to you insulting him in that way. I am tempted to respond with what I really think about you, but then I would be sinking to your level. There was a time when I would have taken the bait, but I’ve realized life is too short.
Instead, I’ll simply say that I’ve recognized the futility of trying to have a rational discourse with you, and will waste no further time with you. Good day.
You then declared that Rall is right
No, I declared that Rall doesn’t spew bile.
You then accused Bill of being a devotee of Limbaugh, O’Reilly, and Coulter, even though Bill condemned Ann Coulter in his last post.
And you know, one has nothing to do with the other.
How many people have said that they think Bush is a total moron, yet would vote for him yet again if they had the chance?
he was able to treat my views with respect and maintain an open mind.
Yet he said Rall belives the “bile” he says. I guess his worldview isn’t as open as you believe it to be either.
I am tempted to respond with what I really think about you, but then I would be sinking to your level.
Well, you’ve already accused me of having a limited worldview, which is a complete crock of šhìŧ, so why stop there?
Craig, I know I shouldn’t waste my time with you, but I hate it when people are dishonest. You did indeed declare that Rall is right:
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at June 10, 2006 11:54 AM
Rall stands up and says what’s true and what’s right, not what sells books, unlike that sex-changed whørë Coulter.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at June 11, 2006 12:52 PM
And you know, one has nothing to do with the other.
How many people have said that they think Bush is a total moron, yet would vote for him yet again if they had the chance?
Craig, you excoriated Bill for calling Rall’s work “bile,” and declared that Rall stands up for “what’s true and what’s right.” You then told Bill if he can’t handle “the truth,” he should go back to people like O’Reilly, Limbaugh, and Coulter.
If the two things are not connected, why did you connect them?
Yet he said Rall belives the “bile” he says. I guess his worldview isn’t as open as you believe it to be either.
Having an open mind doesn’t mean sacrificing the ability to make subjective judgments. If that were true, then by your own flawed logic, your worldview isn’t open because you don’t like Ann Coulter.
Well, you’ve already accused me of having a limited worldview, which is a complete crock of šhìŧ, so why stop there?
Calling your worldview limited is much nicer than calling other people “mindless cattle.” So, yeah, there’s still a way to go before I reach your level. And there’s every reason to “stop there.”
You know, Craig, you and I seem to have something in common: we both have tempers, we both react badly when we perceive we’re under attack, and we’re both too unwilling to walk away when we should. I actually know where you’re coming from.
So my advice is not coming to you from a vantage point of perceived superiority. Quite the opposite: I’ve been where you are. And I’m telling you that it will cost you nothing to take a deep breath, look at this exchange objectively and say, “OK, I was a little unfair to Bill just because he criticized Rall, a guy I like. But there’s room enough in this world for both of us. My bad. Sorry.”
Obviously, you are under no obligation to take my advice. But I will tell you this: learning to take that deep breath every once in awhile hasn’t made me weaker. It’s made me stronger. And it’s made many people more prone to consider what I have to say.
I’m telling you, Craig, that taking a deep breath right now and looking at this discourse more dispassionately won’t hurt you a bit. It will, I think, help to better showcase your intelligence rather than your emotions.
You did indeed declare that Rall is right
Well, this is semantics, and if you think I’m still worth the time, I’ll try explain myself further.
What I mean by “what’s right” in this case is that Rall writes about things like the wiretapping, Gitmo, and other similar issues where our government wants to ignore laws & morality in favor of political expediency. The media has been rather complacent with Bush in the White House; Rall hasn’t.
Coulter, however, just goes for what gets her on the front page, such as the suggestion that we should just kill bunches of people in Iraq and convert the rest of Christianity.
I don’t see how anybody can defend that as “right”.
This is all different, imo, than simple facts of saying 2+2=4 and then declaring you’re right, and the fact that 2+2=5 is wrong.
In any case, Bill Mulligan is welcome to defend himself here, if he wants to. And if he says “No, I don’t read/hear what O’Reilly/Limbaugh/Coulter say, and I disagree with them most of the time”, then so be it, I’m in the wrong.
My perception of him is obviously not entirely accurate, and that’s true of anybody that posts here, but I can’t recall everything that’s been said. Bill just tends to come across, to me, as a party-line kind of guy, and, like it or not, I think party-line people more likely tend to be cattle who will believe any garbage fed to them by the leaders of said party; this goes for both sides of the aisle.
Jeeze, I’m gone for one day and look what happens.
*roflmao* Bile? Yeah, sure, Bill.
Rall stands up and says what’s true and what’s right, not what sells books, unlike that sex-changed whørë Coulter.
But I suppose if you hate hearing the truth, keep going back to the O’Reillys, Limbaughs, and Coulters of the political commentators world.
Well, Craig, if you think that calling someone a “sex-changed whørë” passes for actual thought, then yeah, Rall must seem like a regular Edward R. Murrow.
“Go back to Coulter”? Right, because my post obviously indicated how much I respect her opinions. Quit drinking the Ted Rall koolaid, you’re smarter than this.
And on this topic, Ted Rall has a lawyer looking into the possibility of going after Coulter for libel & slander over comments she made about him (it was along the lines of saying Rall and Trudeau were lined up to join Iran’s publishing of anti-Jewish cartoons after that Mohammed cartoon garbage).
PLEASE tell me you didn’t actually send money to him for this scam. It. Ain’t. Gonna. Happen. Jeeze, of all people, Ted Rall should think twice about what would happen if everyone could sue when some political shmuck said something cruel or unfair. (for those not in the know, Teddy got upset over Coulter’s lame joke “Iran is soliciting cartoons on the Holocaust. So far, only Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau, and The New York Times have made submissions”. Painfully unfunny but about as likely to get a judgement as any of Jay Leno’s zingers.).
Oh, one other note on Rall: he’s been equated for much the same thing as Coulter is now, targetting the widows of 9/11, only for him it was back in 2002.
Uh…well, yeah, that was my point, you know. So I guess my question is, can you possibly find it in yourself to actually critisize Rall or will you have to somehow actually agree with Coulter?
So, in the end, I guess I agree with both Rall and Coulter on one point: some of them have seen far too much profit
Ok, well, that answers that. Personally, I disagree. Rall and Coulter look like petulant teens saying something oh so shocking to get attention. A pox on both.
Bill Myers–thanks, you defend me better than I do, probably because you are less likely to snarl back at attacks, real or perceived. I outta know better but we are what we are…
I see nothing in your last post to distinguish you from Ann Coulter.
Well, there’s an easy way to distinguish my posts from hers: she has an Adam’s apple.
Ummm….I’m not sure that really says what you think it does…
He very much comes off as a right-wing devotee and ended up doing little with his posts, particularly that first one, to change the notion that he’s any different than the rest of the mindless cattle who follow O’Reilly, Rush, and Coulter.
I guess I can’t argue with you on how I “come off” since that’s a purely emotional reaction on your part. I can’t tell you that you don’t feel the way you feel. So there’s no point in arguing, I guess. Your wrong, but off the top of my head I’m not sure I can come up with a solid way of proving it. Or an overwhelming reason to try.
Bill Myers again–really, I should just shut up and let you write because I sound like a much nicer guy when you describe me than I really am.
But you really should have ended it with “Good day to you sir. Good day, I say!”
No, I declared that Rall doesn’t spew bile.
Different strokes and all. Looking over his wiki entry I am reminded of: Rall accusing Art Spiegelman of lacking talent; the whole “terror Widows” comic (you can see it at http://cellar.org/iotd.php?threadid=1161. Be prepared to hold your sides in merriment!); his attacks on the troops (“An Army of Scum” “American troops occupying Iraq have become virtually indistinguishable from the SS”); calling Pat Tillman an “idiot” and “sap”; calling Condoleezza Rice a “house ņìggá; his use of the mentally handicapped to score an easy political point (that’s what got him kicked off the Washington Post)…I’ll stand by my description. (Hope he doesn’t sue!) Certainly, Rall gets it right on occasion; a blind squirrel will find the occasional nut and all. But I don’t find it worth wading through the garbage to find nuggets of worth. Same for Coulter. Even if I agree with her position, she argues it poorly, if one can consider it even arguing. Of course, your mileage, as always, may vary.
You then accused Bill of being a devotee of Limbaugh, O’Reilly, and Coulter, even though Bill condemned Ann Coulter in his last post.
And you know, one has nothing to do with the other.
Yeah, because being a devotee to someone means you condemn them, right? Words have meanings, Craig.
There was a brief time when I thought Coulter was fun–back when she and Rall agreed that Clinton should resign. But here act got real tired, real fast. Luckily for her and Ted that there will always be those who have invested too much into fandom to ever reconsider.
(Rall accusing Art Spiegelman of lacking talent…roll that one around in your head for a while. Ted Rall accusing Art Spiegelman of lacking talent.)
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at June 11, 2006 02:23 PM
Well, this is semantics, and if you think I’m still worth the time, I’ll try explain myself further.
No, it’s not semantics, it’s what you said. You said Rall stands up for “what’s true and what’s right,” and then you said you never said that.
Accuracy and intellectual honesty are not trivial issues.
What I mean by “what’s right” in this case is that Rall writes about things like the wiretapping, Gitmo, and other similar issues where our government wants to ignore laws & morality in favor of political expediency. The media has been rather complacent with Bush in the White House; Rall hasn’t.
But you’ve conveniently left out a lot of the vitriolic crap Rall has spewed. I won’t cover that because Mulligan already did.
Coulter, however, just goes for what gets her on the front page, such as the suggestion that we should just kill bunches of people in Iraq and convert the rest of Christianity.
I don’t see how anybody can defend that as “right”.
Uhm, who in this thread defended that as “right?” On the other hand, I don’t think any reasonable person can defend some of the above examples of Rall’s bile as “right,” either.
This is all different, imo, than simple facts of saying 2+2=4 and then declaring you’re right, and the fact that 2+2=5 is wrong.
In other words, what you’re struggling to say is that there’s an element of subjectivity. If that’s the case, then, you have no business calling others “mindless cattle” for disagreeing with you, because subjectivity implies that there’s no clear right or wrong.
In any case, Bill Mulligan is welcome to defend himself here, if he wants to.
Sure he is. But he’s also my friend, and unless he tells me not to do so, I will also defend him. I stand up for my friends when I believe it’s right to do so. It’s a matter of honor.
(Before anyone comes to the knee-jerk conclusion that I simply defend my friends no matter what, I have in this very blog confronted Mulligan when I thought he was being unfair. He’s done the same to me. But when someone unfairly attacks a friend, I don’t stand idly by.)
And if he says “No, I don’t read/hear what O’Reilly/Limbaugh/Coulter say, and I disagree with them most of the time”, then so be it, I’m in the wrong.
What, that’s it? But, you know, all of the times he’s expressed sympathy with certain liberal views, and distanced himself from extreme conservatives, that stuff doesn’t count?
My perception of him is obviously not entirely accurate, and that’s true of anybody that posts here, but I can’t recall everything that’s been said. Bill just tends to come across, to me, as a party-line kind of guy, and, like it or not, I think party-line people more likely tend to be cattle who will believe any garbage fed to them by the leaders of said party; this goes for both sides of the aisle.
So you’re willing to call someone “mindless cattle,” even if you’re not certain your perception is accurate? Craig, I’m trying to take the high road and give you every benefit of every doubt, but you’re certainly not portraying yourself as someone with very good character.
Oh, and Bill Mulligan, you’re being a bit too hard on yourself: I’ve responded to perceived attacks far more ferociously than anything I’ve ever seen from you. I’d suggest that people go to Newsarama to see what I’m talking about, except that I’d rather they didn’t. I’ve been a terrible troll in the past and I’m trying to clean up my act. Rather than dwelling on what I’ve done in the past, I’m hoping people will judge me on my current efforts to be a better person.
In any case, Bill Mulligan is welcome to defend himself here, if he wants to. And if he says “No, I don’t read/hear what O’Reilly/Limbaugh/Coulter say, and I disagree with them most of the time”, then so be it, I’m in the wrong.
That’s cool, I guess we were both writing at the same time–I didn’t have this when I posted. Probably would have been nicer.
But of course I can’t really say “No, I don’t read/hear what O’Reilly/Limbaugh/Coulter say, and I disagree with them most of the time” because if I don’t read/hear them how the hëll can I know if I disagree with them most of the time???
That said I’ll just state the facts–haven’t listened to Limbaugh iun a long long time but I thought he was reasonably entertaining way back in the 90s, I guess it was. I prefer Howard Stern. What little I’ve seen of Limbaugh since has made me think that he’s more of a Republican promoter than a conservative one but I don’t have the time or opportunity to listen to his show so I really can’t say.
O’Reilly was entertaining for a while until he began believeing his own press–a fate that befalls many. Same for Bill Maher. I hope John Stewart breaks the mold and avoids falling into the same trap but I guess it’s hard.
Coulter? I’ve already devoted more thought to her on this thread than I ever have before and don’t feel like I’ve gained anything by it. As far as THIS conservative is concerened, her only nominal value is as an easy target for liberals to exhaust themselves on (you’ll note that PAD is smarter than most in that regard). She’s troll who periodically hijacks the political discourse of the country.
And I’ll continue to say that Ted Rall is just like her, only with less success at it. But I read Rall only slightly more than I read Coulter so mayby I’m missing his good stuff. I’ll grant the possibility. I just have way to much going on to devote time to finding out, given my low expectations.
and religions shouldn’t tell the government what marriages they should recognize.
***
It only works if you want to take away the first amendment rights of the religious. (as individual or as collections of those individuals)
They can say whatever they want, vote for people who believe in anything they want, whether you or I agree with it. Telling the government your feelings has nothing to do with the government not having the power to dictate to you.
But if you can point me to a reference source that says that “favoring” means “establishing”, then please do so.
*****
It is in several Supreme COurt cases. I believe Justice O’Connor proposed an endorsement test as well. I’m not doing a term paper here though. It is also common sense to me if you start favoring a single religion, yuou are at the least taking a step that is establishing it.
He’s good at that when it comes to these righty whackjobs like Coulter and O’Reilly.
****
O’Reilly may be many things, but he is far from a right wing true believer like Coulter and Limbaugh.
He’s disagreed many times with Coulter in fact, has some positions that are not conservative, and has essentially, decided the Iraq War was a mistake. He’s arrogant, self-righteous, a blowhard, somewhat entertaining, but he is more of a “populist” to coopt a term, than anything else.
As far as Coulter goes, I’m not sure which is worse, that she actually believes the nonsense she spews out or that she’s just playing it up because bile leads to a seven figure income.
If it’s the former, then I seriously think she’s in need of intensive therapy. Nobody can harbor that much hatred for 70% of the country (she doesn’t limit her attacks to liberals, having called moderate votes “idiots” as well) and be a picture of mental health.
If it’s the latter, then she’s a complete hypocrite. Either way, no one should take anything she says seriously.
There are people, both left and right, who do take everything she says seriously, either regarding her as a serious threat or an object of worship. I saw Sean Hannity gush over her this week. God, I think he really does want to do her.
I think the vast majority of Americans think she’s just a nut, but you only need about 10% of the US population to worship you in order to be a millionaire I guess.
As for Rall, as much as I dislike Bush for the past 5 1/2 years of incompetence and cronyism, there have been times when I’ve read his comic and thought, “dámņ, that’s a real cheap shot.”
The truth is, he was funnier when he cast a wider net in terms of targets. Now he goes after Bush about 80% of the time. I think he’s developed an obsession nearly as bad as Coulter’s.
But of course I can’t really say “No, I don’t read/hear what O’Reilly/Limbaugh/Coulter say, and I disagree with them most of the time” because if I don’t read/hear them how the hëll can I know if I disagree with them most of the time???
Well, this is where perception comes back into play, whether correct or not.
We’ve got years of comments, quotes, articles and more on what those three have said. So, based on that alone, whether you listen to them on a daily basis or not, it can give you a pretty good idea of where they stand on issues. Or how far “out there” you think they seem to be.
The same goes for Rall, Maher, and… umm… are there any other liberals out there? Does Al Franken really count?
I just don’t think Rall and Maher are off the deep end (and, no, I’m not drinking kool-aid, nor do I consider defending them a matter of honor).
I really don’t think O’Reilly is either – well, at least too far – but Faux News is Faux News, and he’s more than willing to be their poster child.
so mayby I’m missing his good stuff. I’ll grant the possibility
There is good, there is bad. That’s true of everybody. I think he happens to be very good most of the time at getting to the heart of the matters that many in this country willfully ignore.
I decided I wanted to address some of these:
Rall accusing Art Spiegelman of lacking talent;
This one I was not aware of; apparently before I started reading his stuff, which wasn’t until some time in 2003, iirc.
To be honest, today is the first time I’ve ever looked over Rall’s Wiki entry. I still haven’t checked the entries for Maher, Coulter, O’Reilly, or Limbaugh.
the whole “terror Widows” comic (you can see it at http://cellar.org/iotd.php?threadid=1161. Be prepared to hold your sides in merriment!)
And yet, here were are 4 years later and Coulter basically says the exact same thing, although taking it a step further, about the 9/11 widows.
In the end, it sounds like Rall has been proven correct, to a degree – Beamer’s charity hasn’t exactly been a model for what you do with all those profits when you go and trademark a phrase.
his attacks on the troops (“An Army of Scum” “American troops occupying Iraq have become virtually indistinguishable from the SS”);
How many incidents in the last few weeks alone have been about our troops murdering Iraqis?
Rall has mentioned this several times over the past few years, and, unfortunately because of the actions of our soldiers and government, he’s being proven right.
There’s some serious problems there that our government has yet to address, whether in training, responsibility, or consequences.
calling Pat Tillman an “idiot” and “sap”;
Well, there’s something I don’t agree with.
I gave kudos to Tillman for having the balls to volunteer, but I wish there had been more focus on our military’s lying through the teeth about what happened to Tillman, rather than on Tillman himself.
But then, and I’ll take heat for this, I don’t think Tillman deserves all the recognition for being a hero that he got. Yes, he died serving our country, but it was not a heroic death – it was an accident that our government lied to everybody about.
calling Condoleezza Rice a “house ņìggá;
I must’ve missed this one – considering the weird publishing schedule for his cartoons at times, where some end up several days late, this isn’t surprisingly.
I do know there have been a couple of Condi cartons, but I honestly don’t remember the content.
Based on what Wiki says, I can see where Rall was going with this, that Rice, as black woman working with Republicans, is standing against everything she should be believing in. This one is a toss up as to whether I agree with it or not.
The cartoon is also no longer available.
his use of the mentally handicapped to score an easy political point
This cartoon is also no longer available.
Although, I can’t see where you’re going with the “easy political point”, as Rall is a political cartoonist, so the whole idea, I thought, was to make a political point. 🙂
that’s what got him kicked off the Washington Post
Rall himself just said on his blog Thursday that it was his 9/11 widows cartoon that got him kicked from the Post. I too could’ve sworn that being dropped by the Post was much earlier than late-2004.
Hope he doesn’t sue!
Well, there’s a reason we have libel and slander laws.
If his publisher went to him tomorrow and said “We’re not publishing your book because Ann Coulter said you’re sending a cartoon to Iran”, then, yeah, I’d think he’d have the right to sue because of Coulter’s lies.
You probably would too if you were in the same situation.
Rice, as black woman working with Republicans, is standing against everything she should be believing in.
****
Who is anybody to tell a person what they should or shouldn’t believe simply based on their race and gender?
This is pretty indefensible.
and if anyone truly thinks our troops are acting like the SS, then they have no idea what that means. They need to educate themselves on the SS
Perhaps they should also not paint everyone with the same brush as those who commit atrocities. It would also be good to wait until the facts come out on incidents-or is innocent until proven guilty not applicable to the military?
You’ve got hundreds of thousands of troops being called the worst of the worst-Nazis, being comared to SS which murdered hundreds of thousands if not millions and ran concentration camps in wjich mass exterminations took place, engaging in genocide. All being painted with the same brush. That is horrible and a terrible insult to the many who bend over backwards to avoid as many civilian casualties as possible and put themselves at extra risk while doing so. Really a disgrace.
In every conflict, there have been terrible “war crimes” committed-they were legion in WWII too, people just didn’t realize it because the news media and movies didn’t make a point to tell you about it. There have been terrible crimes here to, and those responsible need to be punished to the max. But you don’t point everyone who put their life on the line with the same brush as those who engaged in genocide. It’s ridiculous
Who is anybody to tell a person what they should or shouldn’t believe simply based on their race and gender?
I think it comes down to the issue of whether you should be willing to help those who haven’t done a whole helluva lot to help you.
And, in the grand scheme of things, Republicans haven’t done a lot for African Americans.
This is pretty indefensible.
Maybe, but you can’t help but think that there are probably a number of African American leaders out there who thought the same thing.
Perhaps they should also not paint everyone with the same brush as those who commit atrocities.
I don’t think that’s what is being done.
Unfortunately, it seems like with every statement made these days, you have to include a qualifier: if you say ‘soldiers’, people assume you mean ‘all soldiers’ rather than ‘some soldiers’, and so on.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at June 11, 2006 06:58 PM
I think it comes down to the issue of whether you should be willing to help those who haven’t done a whole helluva lot to help you.
And, in the grand scheme of things, Republicans haven’t done a lot for African Americans.
That’s your perception. Condoleeza Rice is entitled to believe otherwise. Unlike you, I’m not on the fence about this one: it is racist in the extreme to assert that someone “should” believe something just because they’re black, and it is equally racist to assume that they are a dupe if they don’t believe in that something.
Maybe, but you can’t help but think that there are probably a number of African American leaders out there who thought the same thing.
So what? If I, a caucasian, disagree with a number of white leaders, does that mean I’m doing something wrong? Accepting diversity means accepting diversity, even if said diversity comes in the form of an African-American Republican.
Unfortunately, it seems like with every statement made these days, you have to include a qualifier: if you say ‘soldiers’, people assume you mean ‘all soldiers’ rather than ‘some soldiers’, and so on.
Rall called our army “An Army of Scum.” If he meant to say that a small number of soldiers is committing inexcusable acts, he should have said so. I don’t think that’s what he meant, though. I think he meant to do what he did: to tar all of our troops with one brush.
By the way, needing to communicate with specificity isn’t some new-fangled idea. It’s just good communicating. If you mean “some soldiers,” you should say “some soldiers,” not just “soldiers.”
Diversity of thought and ideas is a good thing.
Posted by: spiderrob8 at June 11, 2006 07:33 PM
Diversity of thought and ideas is a good thing.
Well said.
Condoleeza Rice is entitled to believe otherwise.
Well, she’s a politician, so, to be honest, I’m not sure what she really believes.
If she believes the bile that comes out of Bush’s mouth every week, then I’ll just have to shake my head at her, regardless.
it is racist in the extreme to assert that someone “should” believe something just because they’re black, and it is equally racist to assume that they are a dupe if they don’t believe in that something.
So, is it racist if I’m white (which I am) and I think many poor whites who vote Republican (which many do) are just as guilty of bad judgement as Condi Rice is?
That’s your perception. Condoleeza Rice is entitled to believe otherwise. Unlike you, I’m not on the fence about this one: it is racist in the extreme to assert that someone “should” believe something just because they’re black, and it is equally racist to assume that they are a dupe if they don’t believe in that something.
I have to agree with that. The stupidest thing to come out of the liberal mindset in the past forty years is the idea that blacks and other minorities somehow “owe” them their votes today because of the civil rights movement.
The stupidest thing to come out of the liberal mindset in the past forty years is the idea that blacks and other minorities somehow “owe” them their votes today because of the civil rights movement.
And if I thought that were really true, then liberals would go off about just about everything since it’s pretty much been liberals that have advanced everything from civil rights to social security, etc.
Pandering is one thing – all politicians are guilty of.
But then, I never said anything about votes being “owed” by anybody.
As a side not, I’m about ready to call for liberals and Democrats to be disassociated, and the same for conservatives and Republicans. Why? Because neither party is actually representing the political spectrum they claim as their own.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at June 11, 2006 08:54 PM
So, is it racist if I’m white (which I am) and I think many poor whites who vote Republican (which many do) are just as guilty of bad judgement as Condi Rice is?
No, because in that case you’re not asserting that the poor white voters should or should not believe something based on their race. You’re conflating two entirely different things.
No, because in that case you’re not asserting that the poor white voters should or should not believe something based on their race. You’re conflating two entirely different things.
And if we were talking about poor black kids and poor white kids?
Republicans have done as little for poor whites as poor blacks… hëll, poor everybody, really. Yet, that doesn’t stop poor anybody from voting Republican.
No, I apparently don’t get it.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at June 11, 2006 11:00 PM
And if we were talking about poor black kids and poor white kids?
Republicans have done as little for poor whites as poor blacks… hëll, poor everybody, really. Yet, that doesn’t stop poor anybody from voting Republican.
No, I apparently don’t get it.
Craig, we were talking about how Rall called Condoleeza Rice a “house ņìggá” because, in your words, she isn’t standing up for what she should be. Because, y’know, she’s black. And I asserted that it is racist to assert that anyone of any color is obligated to believe anything solely because of their skin color. Because that assumes that everyone who shares that superficial characteristic has a vested interest in believing in and standing up for the same things. And that’s wrong. African Americans do not comprise a monolithic group.
When you talk about poor people as a group, that’s different. Poor people share a characteristic that is more than skin deep: poverty.
And yes, I’m aware that non-whites are disproportionately poor. But that doesn’t mean that Condoleeza Rice has to “represent,” any more than I, a caucasian, should feel obligated to “represent.”
How many incidents in the last few weeks alone have been about our troops murdering Iraqis?
Rall has mentioned this several times over the past few years, and, unfortunately because of the actions of our soldiers and government, he’s being proven right.
No. If I made some asinine over the top comment that liberals are a bunch of hate filled loonies and I then spent the next few years collecting incidents that backed up the statement–guess what, it’s still a stupid statement. If the reported actions of some soldiers “proves” him right would a few heropic actions by soldiers “prove” him wrong? because I can find plenty of those.
But then, and I’ll take heat for this, I don’t think Tillman deserves all the recognition for being a hero that he got. Yes, he died serving our country, but it was not a heroic death – it was an accident that our government lied to everybody about.
I thought Tillman was heroic before he was killed–that just made him a tragic hero. His heroism had nothing to do with whether he died saving orphans from a fire or because his jeep hit a camel.
Based on what Wiki says, I can see where Rall was going with this, that Rice, as black woman working with Republicans, is standing against everything she should be believing in. This one is a toss up as to whether I agree with it or not.
Obviously nothing I say would convince you otherwise but I think it’s flirting dangerously close to racism to suggest that people must belong to a particular party because of the color of their skin. Or that said skin color means that anyone else has the right to tell them what they “should” believe in.
Although, I can’t see where you’re going with the “easy political point”, as Rall is a political cartoonist, so the whole idea, I thought, was to make a political point. 🙂
Well yeah, but if you are going to make fun of the mentally handicapped I would hope you have a real good point to make, not just “The American voters are stupid! Just like a retarded kid!”
Well, there’s a reason we have libel and slander laws.
If his publisher went to him tomorrow and said “We’re not publishing your book because Ann Coulter said you’re sending a cartoon to Iran”, then, yeah, I’d think he’d have the right to sue because of Coulter’s lies.
You probably would too if you were in the same situation.
Suppose that a soldier returning from Iraq was refused a job because the boss said “Ted Rall said American troops occupying Iraq have become virtually indistinguishable from the SS and we have a lot of Jewish customers so…” Would he have a leg to stand on? And an even better question–in what alternate reality would either event be likely?
I suppose Ted would have nothing to lose by launching a lawsuit that is paid for by people dopey enough to send him money but it’s still a joke.
Manny, as far as I can tell, you’re kinda better off not being informed about Coulter. She comes on any form of media and I instantly think of the Python Arguement Clinic sketch. (BTW, NEVER, EVER if you value your sanity perform that sketch live with a speech-impeded Asian who only THINKS he knows the lines.) She just likes to hear the sound of her own voice and then watch people’s reactions. If you can stand it, watch her sometime. Her arguements are circular until she gets her opposition to sink themselves into the arguement, then she just feeds off the (supposed) hostility. My god, I think I just discovered the true identity of X-Ray.
Den–I saw Mr. Hannity (GODS, how I wish he’d change his first name!) gush as well, and I was struck by something. We now know what happened to Alex P. Keaton later in life. Waht scares me with him, though, is unlike Coulter, he really seems to believe his vocalizations are THE WAY IT SHOULD BE, and I know a lot of people that eat it up and try to be good little Hannity-lings. Whenever he’s in a discussion, if someone disagrees with him, he never lets them get in enough words to make a point, thus they look like stammering yokels, and he looks like the victor in the debate.
As for Rall’s “Army of Scum” comment–sweeping generalizations are an easier way to get your point across than actual accurate language. At least, that’s the impression given by a lot of voices on any side of any fence. I long for the day when any debate can be elevated above the “Less filling/Tastes great” level that seems to have become all too common lately. One of the things that I’ve learned is that there’s an intellectual inside everyone and unfortunately the politicians find it easier to appeal to the lowest common denominator rather than elevate a situation. You think it’s because they don’t want us to know they’re just as clueless?
Bill Myers –
Craig, we were talking about how Rall called Condoleeza Rice a “house ņìggá” because, in your words, she isn’t standing up for what she should be.
I said that that is what I believed the intent of the cartoon to be.
But that doesn’t mean that Condoleeza Rice has to “represent,” any more than I, a caucasian, should feel obligated to “represent.”
You’re right. As I said, I consider it a toss up as to where I stand on this issue, because I don’t consider it a simple one, but yet it is one that makes you think about a lot of different issues in our country.
Case in point, I don’t think the No Child Left Behind law works at all. I think it harms schools that already have trouble getting the funding they need, and many of those schools are in poor, inner city neighborhoods where minority groups are the majority.
So, when it comes down to it, Rice and Gonzales, our AG, I would think should have a vested interest in seeing that this law does what it should: and part of what NCLB is supposed to do is help children in minority groups get a better education.
They are representatives of their respective minorities and I would really hope that they would use their positions to help improve things for all minorities.
I just don’t see that as the general goal of Republicans, and of this administration in particular.
Bill Mulligan –
Obviously nothing I say would convince you otherwise
Well, make all the assumptions you wish.
but I think it’s flirting dangerously close to racism to suggest that people must belong to a particular party because of the color of their skin. Or that said skin color means that anyone else has the right to tell them what they “should” believe in.
See above. I never said somebody “must” belong, but I don’t think it’s a crime to question her situation.
An interesting note to see in Rice’s Wiki entry is that she was Democrat, but became a Republican in 1982 after being put off by Carter’s foreign policy. And yes, I do find that ironic, considering Bush’s current foreign policy.
Would he have a leg to stand on?
Well, I’m not a judge or a lawyer, so time will tell.
I suppose Ted would have nothing to lose by launching a lawsuit that is paid for by people dopey enough to send him money but it’s still a joke.
*shrug* If it somehow causes Coulter to show some humility, it might be worth it in the end.
And no, I didn’t contribute.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at June 12, 2006 12:16 AM
They are representatives of their respective minorities and I would really hope that they would use their positions to help improve things for all minorities.
No, they are not representatives of their respective races, any more than I am a representative of the white race. They are individuals.
And there are those who would argue that the welfare state created by liberals has actually been counter-productive. My girlfriend works for the social services department of the county in which we live, and she’s told me stories that lead me to believe that that argument has some merit.
The social welfare system was designed to take the edge off of capitalism, which in its purest form tends to foster injustice. Unfortunately, the system has evolved to the point where it serves as a crutch for people who choose to have children for whom they cannot care, and who choose not to try to elevate themselves to a better position in life.
When children grow up in an environment where dependency on the government and irresponsibility are the norm, said children often grow up not realizing there are other, more productive, ways to live. Thus the problem of generational poverty is perpetuated.
I’m aware that the days when an unskilled laborer could pick up a job at a factory and earn a decent living are over. Corporations are all too happy to exploit the working class, and that is also a contributing factor to poverty in this country. But it doesn’t help when the government also goes and discourages a certain segment of the population from learning the value of self-sufficiency.
It’s a complicated problem. I can see how someone could take the Republican view of things, even if they are a minority. There is a good argument to be made that the social services system has failed poor people, including impoverished minorities, by fostering a culture that doesn’t value self-sufficiency and personal responsibility.
I don’t know if it’s an argument with which I entirely agree. Nevertheless, it’s got enough merit that I find it hard to dismiss African-American Republicans as dupes.
No, they are not representatives of their respective races, any more than I am a representative of the white race. They are individuals.
I see what you’re saying, and I see that I’m not getting my point across the way I want. My fault, not yours, but I don’t think I’m going to try explaining it again as I think I’ve caused enough trouble lately. 🙂
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at June 12, 2006 10:11 AM
I see what you’re saying, and I see that I’m not getting my point across the way I want. My fault, not yours, but I don’t think I’m going to try explaining it again as I think I’ve caused enough trouble lately. 🙂
Shìŧ. I always like to let someone else have the last word, but I think your last post merits a response.
I do understand your point, believe it or not. You believe Condoleeza Rice has chosen the political party that has done the least to advance the best interests of African Americans (at least in recent times — Lincoln, IIRC, was a Republican). Your viewpoint is not without merit.
I think there’s a fine line, however, between saying that and telling someone what they should believe because they’re black.
That said, last night I began coming to the same conclusion as you: it’s probably time for us to agree to disagree. And sometimes, that’s all you can expect from a rational discourse: two people exchanging ideas, understanding one another, but nevertheless emerging with their original viewpoints largely intact.
Dunno about you, but that works for me.
Disclaimer of sorts: I don’t know all the facts and figures and names, so what follows will be an opinion both unaided and unhindered by those things. I’m not a USian (if you want to be called Americans, get either your country or your continent renamed, it’s confusing).
As I understand it, President Bush wants a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage. As I see it, marriage is two people declaring an oath before witnesses (recognised authorities – a judge, a priest, whoever) that they will love and cherish each other (and the rest) ’til death do they part.
Some people choose different wedding vows, that’s fine – but it’s a vow, a personal commitment, regardless of its legal or religious obligations.
Domestic violence, adultery, deceit, various other factors, are cause for divorce – an oath broken by one or the other party in a marriage. Heterosexual unions aren’t perfect. The fallout affects both partners and any kids along the way.
It’s my opinion that a homosexual couple should be able to enjoy the same freedoms and make the same mistakes as a heterosexual couple. I think a lot could be gained by defining a marriage as a couple who love and protect one another, who make an oath to that effect, to love and protect any kids they choose to raise (their own or adopted). Those who continue to fulfil that oath are a functioning family unit, and should be supported, and there are more important factors in that continued fulfilment than the specific genders of the couple.
If the law supports functioning families, then hopefully it’s saving money on social and welfare services, possibly emergency services, which can be put to better use.
If other people don’t like it, then it’s their right to not like it, but so long as it doesn’t hurt them it’s not their right to dictate what can or can’t be done.
If the politicians are making decisions based on whether it makes them look good rather than how it serves the people, then they’re not doing their jobs.
And if you think I’m wrong… make your case. Persuade me with reason.
Disclaimer of sorts: I don’t know all the facts and figures and names, so what follows will be an opinion both unaided and unhindered by those things. I’m not a USian (if you want to be called Americans, get either your country or your continent renamed, it’s confusing).
As I understand it, President Bush wants a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage. As I see it, marriage is two people declaring an oath before witnesses (recognised authorities – a judge, a priest, whoever) that they will love and cherish each other (and the rest) ’til death do they part.
Some people choose different wedding vows, that’s fine – but it’s a vow, a personal commitment, regardless of its legal or religious obligations.
Domestic violence, adultery, deceit, various other factors, are cause for divorce – an oath broken by one or the other party in a marriage. Heterosexual unions aren’t perfect. The fallout affects both partners and any kids along the way.
It’s my opinion that a homosexual couple should be able to enjoy the same freedoms and make the same mistakes as a heterosexual couple. I think a lot could be gained by defining a marriage as a couple who love and protect one another, who make an oath to that effect, to love and protect any kids they choose to raise (their own or adopted). Those who continue to fulfil that oath are a functioning family unit, and should be supported, and there are more important factors in that continued fulfilment than the specific genders of the couple.
If the law supports functioning families, then hopefully it’s saving money on social and welfare services, possibly emergency services, which can be put to better use.
If other people don’t like it, then it’s their right to not like it, but so long as it doesn’t hurt them it’s not their right to dictate what can or can’t be done.
If the politicians are making decisions based on whether it makes them look good rather than how it serves the people, then they’re not doing their jobs.
And if you think I’m wrong… make your case. Persuade me with reason.
Disclaimer of sorts: I don’t know all the facts and figures and names, so what follows will be an opinion both unaided and unhindered by those things. I’m not a USian (if you want to be called Americans, get either your country or your continent renamed, it’s confusing).
As I understand it, President Bush wants a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage. As I see it, marriage is two people declaring an oath before witnesses (recognised authorities – a judge, a priest, whoever) that they will love and cherish each other (and the rest) ’til death do they part.
Some people choose different wedding vows, that’s fine – but it’s a vow, a personal commitment, regardless of its legal or religious obligations.
Domestic violence, adultery, deceit, various other factors, are cause for divorce – an oath broken by one or the other party in a marriage. Heterosexual unions aren’t perfect. The fallout affects both partners and any kids along the way.
It’s my opinion that a homosexual couple should be able to enjoy the same freedoms and make the same mistakes as a heterosexual couple. I think a lot could be gained by defining a marriage as a couple who love and protect one another, who make an oath to that effect, to love and protect any kids they choose to raise (their own or adopted). Those who continue to fulfil that oath are a functioning family unit, and should be supported, and there are more important factors in that continued fulfilment than the specific genders of the couple.
If the law supports functioning families, then hopefully it’s saving money on social and welfare services, possibly emergency services, which can be put to better use.
If other people don’t like it, then it’s their right to not like it, but so long as it doesn’t hurt them it’s not their right to dictate what can or can’t be done.
If the politicians are making decisions based on whether it makes them look good rather than how it serves the people, then they’re not doing their jobs.
And if you think I’m wrong… make your case. Persuade me with reason.
1I’m not a USian (if you want to be called Americans, get either your country or your continent renamed, it’s confusing).
****
Americans are fine thank you, it is our name, no confusion. United States of America=Americans.
Otherwise, I like your post. Very thoughtful and hearfelt. Right now, undoubtedly since the majority of Americans still oppose gay marriage, the politicians probably do think they are serving the people by opposing it. But things change over time.
I’m not a USian (if you want to be called Americans, get either your country or your continent renamed, it’s confusing).
USian is too awkward and difficult to pronounce. The name of the country is United States of America, so American does work out fine. USian doesn’t differentiate us from other countries like the United States of Mexico or the United States of Brazil (full names of both countries).
For residents of other countries North America and South America countries who may object to us appropriating that name, all have I to say is we called it first.
Kinda like calling shotgun.
Besides, they have perfectly fine names. Brazilian, Mexican, Canadian.
I think from context we should be able to tell if they are referring to the two continents. and even then South and North American would help.
Seriously, virtually everyone I’ve ever knew called the country America. and still does.
Imagine my surprise to see the Karate Kid Part II and here him refer to it as “The States” I still hate that.
“I’m proud to be an American, where at least I know I am free” “As American as apple pie” “America the Beautiful” “Americana” “God Bless America” “The AMerican league” ” America’s game” “American Dream” “Captain America”
I mean, we all know what these are referring to, right?
I knew someone who was from the Dominican Republic. She disagreed with us being called American, cause she was too. I said what do you want “United Statsian” and she is like no “NorteAmericano” or north american.
Besides the fact she is North American too, that is no more accurate, even less so, than American. What about our Canadian and Mexican friends, and all those from Central America?
Oops. Opened a can of worms there… do the threads on this website often deviate from the post’s topic by this much?
spiderrob8’s first reply to my post got me thinking, though… what’s meant by “serving the people”? Seems as though one definition (and I’m not saying this is what you meant, but what came across) is to maintain laws the majority support, but which most of that majority won’t be affected by anyway.
Oops. Opened a can of worms there… do the threads on this website often deviate from the post’s topic by this much?
spiderrob8’s first reply to my post got me thinking, though… what’s meant by “serving the people”? Seems as though one definition (and I’m not saying this is what you meant, but what came across) is to maintain laws the majority support, but which most of that majority won’t be affected by anyway.
Oops. Opened a can of worms there… do the threads on this website often deviate from the post’s topic by this much?
spiderrob8’s first reply to my post got me thinking, though… what’s meant by “serving the people”? Seems as though one definition (and I’m not saying this is what you meant, but what came across) is to maintain laws the majority support, but which most of that majority won’t be affected by anyway.
Right now, undoubtedly since the majority of Americans still oppose gay marriage, the politicians probably do think they are serving the people by opposing it. But things change over time.
************
Except that the majority of Americans also oppose a constitional amendment on the subject, too. So who are they really serving here?
what’s meant by “serving the people”? Seems as though one definition (and I’m not saying this is what you meant, but what came across) is to maintain laws the majority support, but which most of that majority won’t be affected by anyway.
*****
There’s a couple of thoughs really. Should politicians do what the people want even if the politician disagrees? Do they do what is best for the people as a whole in their opinoon or whats right even if the people disagree and they are supposed to represent the people? and where does lonmg term and short term thinking come in? and on what issues one and what issues the other? and how much do you compromise so that you can be re-elected to do more work you think is good?
I don’t have an answer really.