Carnival of the Vanities CXIII

| | Comments (0)

The 113th COTV is at Food Basics. My Affirmative Action VII: Sidebar on Reparations is in it. I'm linking to a bunch of posts, with longer comments on a couple of them, so I've put it all in the extended entry.

Caerdroia argues that we need to return to the original constitutional setup, with some unpopular suggestions on how to do that. I think much of this would be good, though I don't know how easy it would be to implement some of these changes.

I'm not sure if this is rightly called satire or just sarcasm, but Classical Values tackles the mantra that you can't discuss Michael Moore without having seen F-9-11 by restricting all his comment discussions along similar lines.

d-42 wonders why, with all the sex ed available now and in such an oversexualized culture, there are still so many guys who don't know how to have sex with the aim of pleasing a woman. One thing I find interesting is that evangelical Christians are some of the few people around teaching about this sort of thing, because evangelicals are rare in not assuming someone getting married will have alread had sex and therefore know that some will need advice. So it often comes up in premarital counseling, and there are also lots of Christian books about sex that talk about these matters. On the other hand, the oversexualization of our society leads to many guys who think sex is about their own pleasure, because that's what all the sexual images they see are aimed at teaching them. I've been teaching about feminist arguments against pornography this week, and their fundamental moral argument against pornography is what Christians have been saying for years, though feminists deny this vehemently and say they have nothing in common with Christians on the issue except that they want the same goal. They're just wrong on that. The argument that pornography just uses women as a means to men's pleasure and thereofore demeans and dehumanizes women was all over the place while I was growing up in various Christian circles.

La Shawn Barber admirably defends Bush against criticism from liberal black columnist Earl Ofari Hutchinson.

The SmarterCop looks at the givingness to havingness of various states in response to the complaints from blue-staters that they're paying taxes to support people in red states, one of the stranger responses to the election. New England is particularly bad, and my home state of RI is the worst. The only blue state in the top half is NY at 25. The average red stater gives far more money than the average blue stater when compared with income. The one hesitation I have about this data is that it bases it on giving reported on tax returns. I've never reported any giving to the IRS, because I've never made enough money for it to be worth itemizing my deductions. I don't know if that affects this, but if it does then it means the people in blue states who give money are the poorer ones.

Those who think the U.S. is environmentally backward and Canada morally superior need to see Roguepundit's review of Canadian policies on sewage and water treatment.

Dean Esmay is angry at the anti-red screeds from blue red-haters mad about Kerry's loss. It's not because Christians have been misrepresented, though. It's because of the assumptions about a monolithic voting bloc for Bush. Dean is basically a libertarian, and he agrees with Bush about foreign policy, the war on Iraq, and policies like school vouchers and Social Security reform that are designed to help the poor in ways Democratic policies have not. His language is pretty harsh and even offensive at times (to me, anyway), but his points are worth noting. He's an authority-questioner, and he questions the authority of the media and university aristocracy, who thought they could buy the election with money and deceit. There was money and deceit on the other side, but the people who made him really angry were those who misreprented and attacked him, and in the aftermath of the election they're doing it even more strongly, and he's not happy. One primary impetus behind why he voted for Bush was to spite people like Michael Moore. As many have been saying all along, Michael Moore is in Karl Rove's pocket. Not really, and Rove probably hates the guy and would have wanted him to stop, but Moore unintentionally did Rove's dirty work for him. People like Moore, Howard Dean, Al Gore, Al Franken, and all the Hollywood celebrities who attacked Bush angered those who saw something good in Bush, and their words were harsh enough and unfair enough to a large enough number of people that it got them to vote for Bush, not Kerry. In all the hype about the mistaken readings of untrustworthy polls, this is a point worth not forgetting. Kerry is blaming his loss on Usama bin Laden (though if Kerry had been the one to make himself seem the better opponent of bin Laden, that would have helped him). Michael Moore did as much to hurt Kerry as any other terrorist could have.

Leave a comment

Contact

    The Parablemen are: , , and .

Archives

Archives

Books I'm Reading

Fiction I've Finished Recently

Non-Fiction I've Finished Recently

Books I've Been Referring To

I've Been Listening To

Games I've Been Playing

Other Stuff

    jolly_good_blogger

    thinking blogger
    thinking blogger

    Dr. Seuss Pro

    Search or read the Bible


    Example: John 1 or love one another (ESV)





  • Link Policy
Powered by Movable Type 5.04