Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Quick Hits
Posted by: Jon Henke on Monday, February 13, 2006

Ok, this is the last attention I'll give to the already over-remarked-upon Cheney Shooting, but this is getting sillier...
I really have nothing against hunting, but Dick's love of hunting pen-raised animals for fun is really actually quite sick. It's not hunting, it's just mass slaughter.
Says Atrios — and PZ Myers, and others — all of whom eat only meat that stood a sporting chance.

Divider



Brendhan Nyhan...
This statement from GOP chairman Ken Mehlman is just ridiculous.
[...]
"We do not and we never should question these Democrat leaders' patriotism, but we do question their judgment and we do question their ability to keep the American people safe," he said.
Let's go to the evidence (see here, here and here for details). Maybe Mehlman can explain to me exactly how these statements don't question Democrats' patriotism:
Nyhan goes on to cite various Republican statements. Raised from his comments, where it appears to be doing no good, my response:

Show/Hide

Democrats have turned "Don't question our patriotism!" into an all-purpose shield against criticism, and it's degrading to legitimate debate. "Don't question my patriotism" is the national security equivalent of "have you stopped beating your wife?"

Divider



Neil the Ethical Werewolf...
Suppose you — like a number of white Republicans today — think that racism and sexism pretty much ended in the 1960s.
Maybe I've lived too cloistered a life, but this sounds like a strawman. As far as I can tell, the Right doesn't actually believe that "racism and sexism pretty much ended in the 1960s". In fact, outside of the occassional liberal looking to impugn the Right, I've never heard anybody say that. No doubt, somebody could be found to adopt that position, but somebody can usually be depended on to say pretty much anything.

What many on the Right do believe — for those who care to address such things — is that legal racism — racially prejudiced laws — were eradicated in the 1960s, and, if they still exist at all, they are predominantly tilted the other way. (e.g., affirmative action) Generally speaking, the Right — at least, among those on the Right who think seriously about such things — believes that racism and sexism continue to be very real social problems, but that the proper solution is social and not legislative.

It seems to me that assimilation and participation are the most valuable tools we could employ towards reducing the existing social barriers. I don't recall the exact quote, but Bill Clinton once said that opinions about homosexuals seems to be very much a function of one's exposure to homosexuals. That is, people who interact with them on a regular basis — people who have friends and neighbors who are gay — tend to be much more comfortable with homosexuality than people who have limited exposure.

I think the same is true of ethnic and racial minorities. So long as there is a strong separatist streak in subcultures, there will be a backlash — a widespread prejudice against "them". The answer, then, is to reduce that "separateness"; to assimilate cultures, rather than to force them to exist side-by-side.

That is not, I think, a change that government would be very good at engineering.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
This really is a new day. Jon’s post on racism and sexism is 100% supportable and (fill in the superlative). I like and support it very much. Actually, I like both posts, but that I liked the one on the Democrats is more predictable. Damn, I waited for that.
Speaking of new days [weren’t we?] have you noticed a feeling that the earth is shifting beneath your feet (speaking politically) lately? I don’t mean that we are mostly tired of lambasting “liberals” and “wingers” respectively, although we are. It goes deeper than that. There really is a seismic shift taking place. We will all be reading about it soon, one way or another. The ...and here is an example of what I mean. I was just about to type “left”. That terminology is no longer useful in discussing politics except historically. I think I will use “DNC” instead, which is closer if not spot on.
Anyway, the DNC has looked at the Republican lock on the ballot box and analyzed how to break it. I think they are on to something. More about that later.
Next, the potential of the internet in politics has been examined exhaustively and tests have been run. Procedures based on proven theories have been put in place. A carefully orchestrated effort to use the internet for political
advantage is already in process and QandO readers have been subjects. Shocked? Think you are too smart to be duped by such a cynical attempt to mold your opinion? Don’t be so sure. It is pretty sophisticated and the perpetrators have really done their homework.
For instance. Someone like me will spot a giveaway and sound the alarm. Procedures are no doubt in place to quickly discredit such whistleblowers. I suspect the response will go something like this: [Spoken by the planted commenter] “Wait a minute, don’t be fooled by idiots like notherbob2. I, for instance, have absolutely nothing to do with the DNC. In fact, I have some [unspecified] problems with them. I am one of you. You can trust me. I deny that I am part of any “grassy knoll” conspiracy and you would be foolish to go for such nonsense. “ There is already an epithet ready and waiting for such whistleblowers. It will come from the list of epithets carefully prepared for the campaign. Number one was “bedwetters”. It will be something like “chicken little” only worse.
So what is this grand internet conspiracy to get Democrats elected? 1) Get a terrific writer to start a new blog. 2) This blog will kick off the campaign by presenting the topics that research shows will split the Republican coalition into its various parts. Make Bush supporters look at other Bush supporters and say to themselves “What am I doing agreeing with this _______(fill in group with which you have disagreements). 3) This main blog will have commenters “from the other side” to “awaken” and begin supporting the blog’s effort. As the blog’s efforts are successful some real commenters defecting from the Bush backers will volunteer, but you need to speed that up with some ringers. Will readers accept them? Sure, they are only too trusting of new commenters. 4) Hire some persuasive writers to train to become moles on influential blogs. Train them to reflect the characteristics which are admired on the particular blog. They can just “show up”. If they say the right things they will win instant acceptance as a new voice. They can then guide future thoughts expressed on the blog and offer new “information” at strategic points. If nothing else they can keep attention focused on the main blog in 1) and keep subtly repeating its contentions as gospel.
Gee, we blog readers are too slick to fall for such a ploy. Uh-huh.
From my list above: 1) Glenn Greenwald (blog started three months ago. Right when the Gore speech, etc. kicked off the DNC campaign for 2006.) 2) NSA “scandal” and “Guantanamo abuses and errors” 3) Hypatia for one 4) ????.
Think about it.
UPDATE: [OK, not really, but that adds credibility, doesn’t it?]
PHASE II , based on the feedback from the INTRODUCTION phase as analyzed by the DNC Guidance Committee, has just begun. As the enemy blogs react to the INTRODUCTION have the main blog re-emphasize the points research shows will be effective to split the coalition as they inevitably appear in the various Republican-supporting blogs.
Dramatically point out the inconsistencies among the Republican constituency that have heretofore been implacable to efforts to break them. Use the planted commenters to subtly direct regular commenters to the blogs which “more accurately reflect their beliefs” and of course to the main DNC blog for further indoctrination. Feed successes back to the Media Committee for placement in the NYT and other DNC-supporting outlets. What works on the internet will be guaranteed dynamite in the media. No more wasted resources there. Implanted commenters can assure that strategic main campaign errors are not committed by testing various solutions to problems that develop.
It is a pretty good plan. The fissures in the Republican coalition are already there. So long as real issues are the subject of the program I have no objection to it and in fact think that it is brilliant. I am considering supporting the folks smart enough to bring it off with my vote. What if they use objectionable methods (very few in politics) and lies? Oh well, one more disappointment.
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
Yeah, well, given most of the crap they’ve been spouting of late, particularly as regards the war and our security..... they’ve continually demonstated a willingness to sell out their country’s security and it’s troups for even aslight political advantage.... I DO question the patriotism of the Democrats. Openly, and proudly.



 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Hmmmm. I think there’s quite a difference between eating meat that’s been raised for such, and taking pleasure in hunting birds that have been raised for you to hunt them, then herded before you. Fish in a barrel?
PZ’s post that you link to specifically contrasts animal use from pleasure in slaughter, actually.
 
Written By: mithras
URL: http://
Hmmmm. I think there’s quite a difference between eating meat that’s been raised for such, and taking pleasure in hunting birds that have been raised for you to hunt them, then herded before you. Fish in a barrel?
There’s none whatsoever except in the case of meat raised for such, you don’t have to do the actual killing.
PZ’s post that you link to specifically contrasts animal use from pleasure in slaughter, actually.
Makes little diffrence to the animal (or your stomach for that matter) does it?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I think there’s quite a difference between eating meat that’s been raised for such, and taking pleasure in hunting birds that have been raised for you to hunt them, then herded before you.
What, exactly, is this difference? In either case, we’re getting utility out of animals specifically held in captivity and killed for our benefit.

It might not be as sporting as shooting wild birds, but it’s a far cry from shooting them while they’re actually caged. As far as I can tell, the "sport" is the same whether the hunter is shooting at previously caged birds or wild birds. In either case, they lift off from the ground and the hunter tries to shoot them as they try to get away. The only difference is that the field had been, in effect, "stocked", in much the same way as lakes are stocked with fish.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
The cited quotes argue that the Democratic arguments are having "the effect" of undermining the troops, of comforting the enemy, or that they are simply dishonest. That has nothing to do with their patriotism. One can be patriotic and still make poor arguments; one can be patriotic and make arguments that rebound negatively on American interests.
One definition of patriotism is love of and devotion to ones country. It would follow, then, one is not patriotic to the extent one does something that negatively affects American interests. One obviously would not negatively affect something one loves. It follows, of course, is that if one negatively affects ones country one is not patriotic.

Sorry, but I think you would have a hard time convincing most people - both on the left and right - that a person who aids the enemy is or can still be patriotic. Nyhan is a pretty level headed guy. I once read a review he did of Farenheit 9/11 in which he took Michael Moore to task on several issues.

Obviously the Bush administration has been trying to paint its opponents as non-patriotic. Look at Rove’s recent speech. Is anyone still seriously debating this tactic? Wingers truly believe that non-Bush lovers are unpatriotic. Non-wingers believe they are being painted as such.

On this issue, there is no real debate.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Think the Cheney matter is silly? Some wingers don’t. J-Po at the Corner put it this way:
This story is a very big deal, despite all the mitigating factors — the accident involved a friend, his medical team was right there to help, and all that. Something like this has never happened before, and it is a genuinely disturbing thing to think that the vice president of the United States actually shot somebody last weekend, even for fans of his. It’s disturbing as well that there was a news blackout that lasted nearly a day about this serious incident. It seems beyond question that the vice president is going to have to go before the cameras, explain what happened, and show genuine remorse for his actions, however inadvertent. It’s a difficult challenge for someone as reticent as Dick Cheney. But unless he does so, and makes a good showing of it, he will be damaged goods for the remainder of the Bush presidency.
Of course, the Bush cultists would like to a little hunting with J-Po now, but that is to be expected.

Of course any comparisons to Aaron Burr is a smear on the Burr memory, so I won’t make one.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Of course there’s a difference: and you’re right, the difference is not with regard to the animal (just as dead), but in the person doing the act. And what shooting birds in a barrel says about the person doing so is not particularly good. I don’t know why you find that a controversial proposition.
 
Written By: Mithras
URL: http://mithrastheprophet.blogspot.com
Show me where the Bush administration has been trying to paint its opponents as non-patriotic???

And I’d love to see the text of Rove’s recent speech, I’ve yet to find a link to it. And prefer not to see the cherry picked comments of any "reporter"

***

I don’t think Republicans need to state or question any Democrats patriotism...

Their actions and speech does it for them...
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
I don’t think Republicans need to state or question any Democrats patriotism...

Their actions and speech does it for them...
Eactly my point. Wingers really believe that non-Bush lovers are unpatriotic. So they have no problem with painting them as such. And non-Bush lovers know that wingers are painting them as unpatriotic.

Again, I don’t see the debate here.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
From the Wish I Had Said It First Department ....
* The Attorney General claims that the Vice President was granted the power to shoot lawyers under the resolution allowing use of force in
Afghanistan.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Right...

It’s not debatable, because we use code words and such...

We don’t actually have to state in a speech that Democrats are not patriotic, we just call ourselves patriotic, and then give this wink and a nod... And the mainstream media reports with appropriate shock and revulsion, that even though it wasn’t uttered, Republicans called Democrats unpatriotic.

You either are patriotic, or are not patriotic. I don’t think any particular person stating it about someone, one way or another, helps another person make up their minds about that someone.

One’s actions and words either are patriotic, or are not patriotic. It aint my fault if the shoe fits...

http://www.showmenews.com/2006/Jan/20060121News015.asp
"Republicans have a post-9/11 view of the world. And Democrats have a pre-9/11 view of the world," Rove told Republican activists. "That doesn’t make them unpatriotic not at all. But it does make them wrong - deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong."
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
One definition of patriotism is love of and devotion to ones country. It would follow, then, one is not patriotic to the extent one does something that negatively affects American interests. One obviously would not negatively affect something one loves. It follows, of course, is that if one negatively affects ones country one is not patriotic.
Ah, I didn’t realize you had such an all-encompassing view of "unpatriotic". In that case, I must again ask, what are Democrats complaining about? Their bread and butter these past few years has been the complaint that the policies of Republicans, the Right, Conservatives, et al, would hurt, or are hurting, America.

Indeed, that’s the entire point of political criticism.

You define "unpatriotic" so broadly that everybody — every politician, interest group and activist — must constantly be questioning the patriotism of their political opponents. To turn about and complain about it is, of course, nonsensical.
Nyhan is a pretty level headed guy. I once read a review he did of Farenheit 9/11 in which he took Michael Moore to task on several issues.
Nyhan is a very level-headed fellow, and his work at Spinsanity was excellent. I often pick him to disagree with precisely because he’s a fellow whose views are worth reading.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Says Atrios — and PZ Myers, and others — all of whom eat only meat that stood a sporting chance.
It’s not that silly if you think about it.
It’s just as sick if someone working in a slaughter house takes pleasure in killing the animal. Sporting chance has little to do with it. It’s the pleasure of the kill, not the hunt.

And what’s with "hunting", anyway? I own more weapons than I own shoes, but I just don’t get it. What so manly about walking along waiting for some animal someone has placed for you to fly so you can shoot it? What’s so manly about waiting in a deer blind for an animal you’ve been baiting for weeks to stroll along and get blasted to hell?
Congratulations you’ve outsmarted an animal.
Unless your hunting a lion with a spear, you don’t impress me.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Of course there’s a difference: and you’re right, the difference is not with regard to the animal (just as dead), but in the person doing the act. And what shooting birds in a barrel says about the person doing so is not particularly good. I don’t know why you find that a controversial proposition.
So far as I can tell, the only difference between normal hunting procedures and what Cheney did was that Cheney essentially had the field "stocked", in much the same way that lakes are frequently stocked with fish. The birds are released and able to fly away in exactly the same manner as they would were they in the field naturally.

I don’t care for the sport of hunting, but this is very different than "shooting fish in a barrel", and no different than fishing in a stocked lake.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
And what’s with "hunting", anyway? I own more weapons than I own shoes, but I just don’t get it. What so manly about walking along waiting for some animal someone has placed for you to fly so you can shoot it? What’s so manly about waiting in a deer blind for an animal you’ve been baiting for weeks to stroll along and get blasted to hell?
I don’t get the sport, either, but then I don’t get a lot of things: Nascar, wrestling, music, etc. To each their own.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Dude, I’m totally with you on NASCAR... WHAT IS THAT??? It’s cars going in a circle???
But music!?! ’Kay, you’re just weird.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
(shrug) Don’t get it. Just people making noise. And emoting.

I have yet to discern why I should be concerned with Madonna’s thoughts on romance, Eddie Vedder’s feelings about family life, Morrissey’s enternal wrestling match with ennui, Jay-Z’s millions, or Bono’s lemons. There’s nothing in it for me.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
So...What?... No Metalica for you then?...
lol

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
You define "unpatriotic" so broadly that everybody — every politician, interest group and activist — must constantly be questioning the patriotism of their political opponents.
All I did was give you the definition of patriotism I found in several sources. I don’t think anyone seriously disagrees with it.

Again, the GOP talking point is that they aren’t painting those who do not love Bush as unpatriotic. But of course that is what they are doing. It’s Orwellian of course, but par for the course for the GOP. They do it all the time. Remember Marc Antony’s funeral oratory in Julius Ceaser? When Antony said that Brutus was an honorable man, his point was that Brutus was NOT an honorable man. A very common rhetorical technique.

And again, most wingers - the ones who are honest, like Ketih, really believe that those who do not love Bush are not patriotic. They really believe that. Really. Go to any winger blog and ask the simple question" Is the left unpatriotic? I bet you get 98% saying yes.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Never did I say that those who do not love President Bush (as oppossed to Bush, the band or snack,) are not patriotic.

You can put all the words you want into my mouth but I DID NOT SAY THAT.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Part of the problem of patriotism is that so many defenders of the President are unwilling to imagine that any behavior other than Bush’s is patriotic and so many opponents cannot conceive that his actions were taken with the best of intentions. The idea that Bush’s behavior is not only not the only possible way to be patriotic, but has been contrary to the national interest is impossible for his proponents to swallow, while opponents see only malign intent on the President’s part. No longer is patriotism evaluated independently. No longer do they consider a larger context. For these people, if the President does it, it is patriotic/unpatriotic, even if they condemned/condoned the same actions in Clinton or Carter. That is no longer a discussion of patriotism, it is just partisan bickering.

Johnson may have said that "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel," but he also said that "A patriot is he whose publick conduct is regulated by one single motive, the love of his country; who, as an agent in parliament, has, for himself, neither hope nor fear, neither kindness nor resentment, but refers every thing to the common interest." That is indeed patriotism and it does lend itself to conflict in outcomes, as differing people fairly perceive that there is a differing way to increase the common weal.
 
Written By: freelunch
URL: http://
And again, most wingers - the ones who are honest, like Ketih, really believe that those who do not love Bush are not patriotic. They really believe that. Really. Go to any winger blog and ask the simple question" Is the left unpatriotic? I bet you get 98% saying yes.
Since the question isn’t "Are you patriotic if you don’t love President Bush?", I fail to see the connection.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
But honestly Mark ... Has anything mkultra ever posted ever made any sense? Has he ever actually defended anything he has ever said with an argument as opposed to blind assertions and outright lies?

No.

Why would you continue expecting caged monkeys to do anything but throw sh*t?
 
Written By: Martin A. Knight
URL: http://
"I think there’s quite a difference between eating meat that’s been raised for such, and taking pleasure in hunting birds that have been raised for you to hunt them, then herded before you."

They aren’t "herded before you". They are released into fields and you have to hunt for them and not all birds released are killed. They are generally not as smart or fast as a wild bird but even a slow quail is a fast bird, challenging shot. Not my type of hunting though. Did it once and won’t do that again. I’ll stick with the old fashioned hunt.

 
Written By: mark m
URL: http://
All I did was give you the definition of patriotism I found in several sources. I don’t think anyone seriously disagrees with it.
No, I’m not aware of much dispute that "love of country" is patriotism. Where we differ is in the notion that charging another person with doing something harmful to the country is equivalent to charging them with a lack of patriotism.

If it is, then you’ve been questioning our patriotism since day one.

As I wrote above, you’re conflating "I disagree with you and think your arguments are harmful" with "I question your patriotism". Those are clearly different arguments.
Go to any winger blog and ask the simple question" Is the left unpatriotic? I bet you get 98% saying yes.
Go to Atrios, Daily Kos, et al, and ask the same question about the Right. You’d get an equivalent answer. But we’re not discussing the chatterati. The post was specifically about prominent Republicans and Democrats.
Has anything mkultra ever posted ever made any sense? Has he ever actually defended anything he has ever said with an argument as opposed to blind assertions and outright lies?
Yes and yes.

 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
They aren’t "herded before you".

Yeah, that’s a bit of a dysphemism. But, by accounts, it’s somewhat accurate in this situation.
Armstrong said she was watching from a car while Cheney, Whittington and another hunter got out of the vehicle to shoot at a covey of quail.
WATCHING FROM A CAR!?
CHENEY GOT OUT OF THE VEHICLE TO SHOOT AT A COVEY OF QUAIL!?
Come on…
Dick Cheney shoots at birds for the sole reason to kill birds. No one can seriously call what Cheney was doing “hunting”. One wonders why the VP even bothered to get his boots muddy.
If Cheney wanted to kill something, Huntsville is just up the road. And I’m sure the warden would’ve obliged.

They are generally not as smart or fast as a wild bird but even a slow quail is a fast bird, challenging shot.


I’ve been quail hunting. And you know what’s faster than quail?
Clay pigeons.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
"WATCHING FROM A CAR!?"
You must be terribly nearsighted. I can see quite far from a car.

If I promise to stop calling Democrats unpatriotic, will they promise to stop calling me racist, sexist, greedy,etc?


 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Well how close would you have to be to give an accurate description of how Dick Cheney shot a man in the face?
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
"One definition of patriotism is love of and devotion to ones country. It would follow, then, one is not patriotic to the extent one does something that negatively affects American interests"

Mea culpa. I must confess to having done several things in my life that negatively affected America’s interests(in a small way, of course). I will wager, however, that I am far from alone in this.
Frankly I think the whole argument is silly and pointless. Kind of a "nyahh nyah, your momma wears combat boots", "oh yeah, you’re another" sort of thing.

I may be unpatriotic, but at least I give the meat I eat a sporting chance. (At least I will until I get caught) I am fortunate enough to live in a rural area, so that when my larder runs short on protein I go over to a nearby farm. With me I carry two guns. I seek out a particularly sporty looking cow and confront it, hurling vile insults at it. If the craven beast fails to respond to my challenge, I smite it with a glove in the traditional manner, and place my two guns at its feet, giving it first choice. I inform the cowardly, but sporting, animal that it has 30 seconds to select a weapon and use it (time is understandably critical, particularly in daylight). So far I have been incredibly fortunate to have been blessed with opponents with very slow reflexes. Poultry is more difficult; no attention span at all and very flighty. I tried goose once, but the cheating sob chose hand-to-hand combat. Very painful.

"the chatterati"
I like that. First time I have seen it.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider