The Articles That Got Away

I admit, I missed some:

The great thing about Tom Friedman is that he never gives us a chance to forget what an idiot he is.

Colonialism off: Pres. Bush will not get his Status of Forces Agreement before he leaves office.

Jeralyn’s post about the Omar Khadr interrogation video includes links to transcripts of previous trial proceedings and TalkLeft’s prior coverage of the case.

Matthew Yglesias’s post, “War for War’s Sake,” is one of his last as an Atlantic contributor (he’s moving to the Center for American Progress).

Ron Beasley writes about a radioactive river.

We already know that John McCain called his wife a “cunt.” Now we find out he is a fan of rape jokes as well.

Did you know that the only way to get around Arizona is by small private plane?

Over 100 University of Chicago professors have signed a letter to the university president objecting to the university’s new $200 million investment.

The Bush administration is trying to push through a new rule requiring recipients of federal health aid funding to certify that opposition to abortion or to contraception will not be a bar to employment. (To bypass compulsory free registration, go to www.bugmenot.com.)

Maliki wants the Green Zone back, too.

3 Responses to “The Articles That Got Away”

  1. gcotharn says:

    Hooray! We have something to semi-agree about: Tom Friedman has some idiotic opinions.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Kathy,
    I’m trying to fully understand one of your assertions in a previous conversation.

    Are you saying:
    1. if a person reasons his or her way to believing homosexuality is a choice and/or a sin, then
    2. rather than this person having engaged in dumb or idiotic reasoning in order to reach this erroneous concusion
    3. this person’s reasoning and conclusion, in and of theirselves, constitutes bigotry?

    Thanks. I ask b/c, at points in our Jesse Helms conversation, you were saying it was possible or likely that Jesse Helms opposed homosexuality for religious reasons, yet those religious reasons were so extreme and wrong as to constitute bigotry in and of themselves.

    I think, if you said people had idiotic opinions about various things, I could agree or disagree, yet you and I would not use up so many words in understanding each other’s views. What lengthens our attempts to understand each other are your assertions of a bigotry which goes beyond mere idiotic reasoning.

    Maybe this can better explain the distinction I am trying to draw: If I think you have some idiotic ideas, then: so what? Who cares? You and I can still be friends. Everyone has some reasoning and some ideas I disagree with. However, if I think you are a bigot, or a racist, et al, then you and I cannot be friends. It’s that extra jump from an idiotic idea to a bigoted, um, foundational philosophy, I guess, which is perplexing and animating me.

  2. Kathy says:

    1. if a person reasons his or her way to believing homosexuality is a choice and/or a sin, then
    2. rather than this person having engaged in dumb or idiotic reasoning in order to reach this erroneous concusion
    3. this person’s reasoning and conclusion, in and of theirselves, constitutes bigotry?

    Not necessarily. It depends what the person does with that view. Beliefs are not the problem, unless you are incapable of recognizing that they ARE beliefs, not facts or scientific truth. If you do suffer from that kind of incapacity, then you are likely to go out into the world and treat people about whom you have those beliefs like crap.

    Here’s one example. Say I believe that men and women who like to swap sexual partners are sick, disgusting, and perverted. Now there’s an example of something that really IS behavior, and not inheritance or innate nature. Partner-swappers are choosing to do what they do, and I actually do find it revolting. That’s okay, but what’s not okay is to refuse as a matter of public policy to fund STD education and prevention programs for partner-swappers simply because I disapprove of their lifestyle. If I do that, then I am taking my personal beliefs and using those personal beliefs to harm others, simply because I don’t like what they do.

    So, it really doesn’t matter to me if Jesse Helms’ homophobia was rooted in genuine, sincere religious belief. What matters to me is the way he used his private religious beliefs to hurt people, physically, emotionally, and politically.

  3. gcotharn says:

    okay, thanks. I understand your opinion much better.

    Since I have right-side views, I don’t consider failure to fund government programs re STD to be “hurting people”. We can agree to disagree about this, as friends who each understand each other’s opinion.

    I do think, in the late 80s + early 90s, Jesse Helms should’ve supported government funding for AIDS research. We were facing a crisis, and government funding would’ve helped jump start research for a cure. I think he was constitutionally justified, yet stingy of spirit.

    Sen. Helms might’ve been plainly bigoted against gay people, yet I’m uncomfortable leveling that accusation based on the facts I know at this time. I do think Jesse Helms was demonized in order to raise money for the Dem Party, and his “bigotry” was possibly an unfair accusation. I cry no tears for him. He was a big boy and a mean political player. But I won’t say “bigot” about him, at least at this time. Thanks to your explanation today, I think I fully understand your disagreement with me regarding Sen Helms. Thanks for that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook