<p>Berurah and mardad, May I join the club? I’m not sure if it is open mindedness, or just that I hate to make decisions, but I,too, find that I can often see both sides (or several sides) of an argument. It can make it very difficult at times deciding how to vote, particularly on issues.</p>
<p>mardad, when I was younger, people would sometimes ask me why I didn’t get my ears pierced. I would tell them I had enough holes in my head already…</p>
<p>
I resemble that remark!! <em>lol</em> 
</p>
<p>And OF COURSE you may join the BSN (Both Sides Now) club!!! Now, at which great restaurant shall we have our first meeting??–or is that too much to decide?? ;)</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>'If you are a Democrat and never voted for a Republican, or vice-versa, you are an idiot."</p>
<p>Operating under the assumption that the opposite party does in fact have the better candidate…Which brings up the whole topic of subjectivity; I didn’t get the logic there.</p>
<p>“If you are a Democrat and never voted for a Republican, or vice-versa, you are an idiot.”</p>
<p>Yeah, that’s probably the most flawed remark of the bunch. It assumes the reader has been voting for multiple elections, for one thing. Pretty much anyone under 22 or so is a guaranteed idiot.</p>
<p>The point, firewalker, is that neither party ALWAYS fields the best candidate. A thinking person looks at each individual candidate, his/her stance on the issues, and his/her proposed action before voting along straight party lines.</p>
<p>That’s something a voter decides. It’s just a matter of personal choice, and will always be subjective.</p>
<p>Just by suggesting that you’re already assuming circumstances</p>
<p>Yes! </p>
<p>Oh, sorry, I thought that this was a thread where some of us can finally admit we’re idiots.</p>
<p>Now I realize that it’s a POLITICAL discussion.</p>
<p>Excuse me. My bad. Carry on.</p>
<p>To keep it short, I endorse PH’s post #16 almost in total…ok, in total. </p>
<p>[can’t keep it short though]</p>
<p>I think the original article was intended to be humorous, albeit, in the fashion of politicians, journalists and academics who, as a rule, haven’t a funny bone in their body as they persuade us of their very correct and necessary views. It is clearly a bland rendition of: “You know you’re a red-neck if…?”</p>
<p>I would add (re another thread):</p>
<p>You know you are a complete and total idiot–if to your uppity credit not a redneck–if…</p>
<p>You believe it is OK for the leader of the free-world to encourage his interns to bow and perform oral-sex on his scepter, but that it would be beyond the pale for you to endorse a candidate that satisfies his untoward sense of oral gratification through smoking cigarettes…that is, without coercing others to smoke it for him…it is simply too much for the moral-constitution of the PC bloviater to take and you are, therefore, admittedly an idiot (if perhaps not a complete idiotic hypocrite). </p>
<p>To wit:
I remember hearing Shawn Colvin (a female folkish-singer) being interviewed on Public Radio. She confessed that she grew up idolizing the grand dame of folk/jazz, Joni Mitchell. She was asked by the female interviewer if she ever had the opportunity to go on stage with Joni and she said she had not, but that she had the incredible opportunity to record her first album in Joni Mitchell’s home studio: living with her in her home for two weeks!</p>
<p>The public radio interviewer, an otherwise moral-libertine-liberal, replied, “you must have been very torn!”
The folk singer, Colvin, was clearly dumbfounded by her remark and asked, “…what do you mean by ‘torn’, it was like a dream come true”</p>
<p>The interviewer interjected:
“but…Joni Mitchell smokes cigarettes!!”</p>
<p>…ah, the high-minded tolerance of the morals-police.</p>
<p>It’s the use of the word “idiot” that bothers me.</p>
<p>I have pledged not to discuss politics, so I will explain my objections as a language issue.</p>
<p>The essay pretends to be objective, but really skews one way. For instance, it proclaims one an idiot for looking at important issues from a social or environmental angle, but not an economic one. It does not, however, have a problem with the converse–looking at something from an economical angle, but not the social or environmental.</p>
<p>It also plays with wording to make pseudo-points. For instance, the point about the Constitution being the “ultimate” answer blurs how the the word “ultimate” is being heard. If you view it as the final arbiter of what is legal in the US, while then yes, it is. Anyone reading the question would be more likely to answer that way. But the writer thenchanges the meaning to be more like “final” in time, forever, and of course, it is not. It is a living document. But that’s a different question. So yes, the Constitution is the ultimate authority on legality in the US, but no, the version we use is not the final one that will exist. We have Constitutional means to change it, for bad or good.</p>
<p>So, I guess I’m an idiot.</p>
<p>Or I like English language too much to accept sloppy thinking wrapped in an aura of objectivity.</p>
<p>I agree with golani, that certain things are moral absolutes. </p>
<p>For example: Pedophiles are dangerous predators who should be kept away from children. Serious consequences should be in place for those who abuse children. </p>
<p>Is my premise too emotional for anyone’s taste? Not enough logic or evidence? Or am I guilty of the greatest crime of all, lacking nuance?</p>
<p>We aren’t talking about pedophiles, who harm OTHERS; we are talking about committed and loving individuals of the same gender who want to get married. They will harm no one in that action. As I told Golani, just turn your back and then there will be no personal harm to you or your family, and not even to your precious moral sensibilities.</p>
<p>“Yeah, that’s probably the most flawed remark of the bunch. It assumes the reader has been voting for multiple elections, for one thing. Pretty much anyone under 22 or so is a guaranteed idiot.”</p>
<p>Admittedly the longer you’ve been voting the more likely you are to have voted for multiple parties. I think the issues are often quite different at the local level though. I often like many of the Republicans in our local elections. But I have to say that Bush has so soured me on his party, I am unlikely to vote for a Republican dogcatcher this year. There is one state race for which I am considering abstaining since I don’t like the Democrat.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Garland, please: You are better than this. </p>
<p>I would understand the merits of such a “pledge” in the virtual cantina of the coyly-petite “Sinner’s Alley”, where make-believe and the grand gesture are celebrated, cute and socially de rigueur. </p>
<p>But it is not at all clear to me why not getting involved in discussions of the current events of the day need be a *cause celeb<a href=“repeatedly”>/i</a> for the effete socialite; a public proclamation of high moral fiber and a throat clearing hrrmmm, hrmmmm, hrmmm. </p>
<p>Just don’t post, you silly.</p>
<p>All these “pledges” are simply killing me. Quaint and laughable and, perhaps back in high school, sweet. Here, droll: breaking wind in an elevator as you scurry out the door to leave the rest with the remnants of your social indiscretion.</p>
<p>The “pledges” are first and foremost disingenuous and dishonest–the old having your cake and eating it too, ploy. </p>
<p>To wit, </p>
<p>“I am–through good-breeding and refined culture–above slugging it out with the hoi polloi…dirtying myself as it were, it’s bad form–but I do it anyhow…that is to say, I go slumming once and awhile (in costume so as not to offend their sensibilities) just to observe how the vulgus amongst us get along living their quaint pathetic lives…I say, let them eat cake.”</p>
<p>…</p>
<p>fwiw,</p>
<p>There are moral absolutes, only a fool would say otherwise…that is not to say that we suffer any lack of “fools” and moral relativists in such a “diverse” crowd.</p>
<p>Thanks for the character analysis! What you do with language is truly fascinating.</p>
<p>Allmusic, your post makes no sense. This is not the gay marriage thread.</p>
<p>Garland,</p>
<p>…whatever I can do.</p>
<p>btw, I always like reading your posts and I meant what I said: I believe you are (as a commentator) better than this. It is, you must admit, a silly ploy. I for one would love to see you post your thoughts (as you do) without the silliness of claiming you will only break your righteous fast to have one more piece of chocolate and a handful of pop-corn amongst the gluttons and than back to the petite eating of the caviar-club.</p>
<p>Is there a sin in such sincerity?</p>
<p>And, FS, don’t take the “pledging” thing so seriously. It’s been obvious in lots of posts that it’s really bugging you.</p>
<p>I haven’t found the political discussion at any way useful in this particular forum. Too much character assassination–just a virtual forum, of course, so in no way important (the assassinations, I mean), but really, why bother, if that’s the game here?</p>
<p>I love your pretend class issues, though. Yeah, I’m definitely a “let’em eat cake type”–I’m sure that’d be interesting to prove.</p>
<p>Had you down as more the “caviar-club” babe. Living-high amongst the rabble in NJ.</p>
<p>[edit: oh yeah, and a sense of humor would be indespensable to many a liberal here, imho…still, even at comedy clubs everyone laughs when the talent makes fun of an audience member–unless they are that member]</p>
<p>fwiw,
I’ve never mentioned the sanctimonious “pledge” before…that was only for you, sweetie: East-side Pride!</p>
<p>Caviar, ew. Homemade tomato sauce from the back garden, maybe. Living high? I’ll have to send you my zip code sometime. We’re the folks Caldwell looks down its nose at.</p>