So much to blog about, so little time. Here are a few links from around the net.
-Fr. Z has the must-read post of the day: The Problem with Toning Down the Rhetoric – and Why We Probably Won’t Do It. This part is so on the money I need to paste it here.
QUAERUNTUR: When was the last time you saw a “consistent life ethics” Catholic instead of simply assuring you that, yes, they too oppose abortion, actually speak out loudly against abortion? Do you know any “consistent life ethic” Catholics who seriously weigh a candidate’s position on abortion when deciding how to vote in an election?
- Carl Olson takes note of Obama’s morally self-righteous rhetoric.
What I have noticed is the President, when addressing certain controversial issues, often resorts to a simple but misleading method. It is not so much a form of argument as it is a way of largely avoiding argument while appearing to address the controversial subject at hand. This involves, first, speaking about the two opposing sides as if he is essentially objective about both and, in some way, is morally superior to both. Then he often renders an opinion that is actually in favor of one side of the debate, but makes it appear as though he has rendered an objective sort of opinion based on a morally (and intellectually) superior third way.
Indeed.
- Ten reasons why the BMI is bogus. My doctor would agree.
- And of course it wouldn’t be a complete day until two conservative bloggers rip each other for having a slightly different take on Palin’s departure. In one corner we have Robert Stacy McCain coming to Palin’s defense, or at least criticizing people like Ace, who in turn replies with a LONG post that I sort of tuned out of by the 12th page or so.
Me: If Palin is doing this to prep for a 2012 presidential run, then it strikes me as a bit curious. Her term expires in 18 months, and then she would still have two full years to campaign. But I am willing to take her at her word, and frankly I think she has every reason to be disgusted with the attacks on her and her family.
To those who would counter that it’s a sign of cowardice to quit in the face of such mud-slinging, there are a couple of points to be made. No one who enters national politics should be naive enough to expect to be treated with kid gloves. However, no one should expect the disgusting vitriol that was spewed at her family’s expense. I doubt she could have foreseen that a psychopathic blogger would never cease p0ndering whether or not she was the mother of her own child. I don’t think she had any reasonable expectations that a late night “comedian” would make rape jokes about her daughter. Politics is a dirty game, but a lot of what we have witnessed with Sarah Palin went far beyond the pale.
Second, it is depressing to think that we have sunk so low that we’ve pretty much driven anyone out of national politics who might actually value their family life. The types of people who aim for higher office are almost all uniformly egotistical, power-hungry, ruthless individuals that shouldn’t be trusted to run a hot dog stand let alone the country. The idea of selfless national sacrifice has long gone out the window.
The greatest tragedy of the 2008 election was that the very personality type which should be the model of presidential behavior doesn’t have a chance precisely because his personality is what is needed for the job. Yes, I’m talking about Fred Thompson. As my friend and I discussed over the weekend, his problem was that he didn’t care if he became president. That’s precisely why he should have been elected. But the hypocrites – especially on the right – who moan about their disgust of ambition-driven politicos were the ones who mocked Thompson for the lack of such ambition.
And so it is with Sarah Palin. Well, great. Now these poseurs who sit on their high horses and who have been part of the lynch mob to drive her away will probably do nothing but kevetch when Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee in 2012. Well you helped stick us with him. Eat it.
Finally, one last note. I tire of people acting like martyrs when they express opinions that a majority of people – maybe even their readership – disagrees with. Being in the minority can be a sign of bravery, or even that you possess a keen perspective. Or it may just mean that you’re – and I know this might come as a shock – wrong.
