Posts Tagged ‘rhetoric’

Quote of the day (week)

June 16, 2017

The only way to back away from this instead of falling over the precipice is for Democrats, Republicans, and the media to acknowledge that the other side really does not want you dead. But there is too much invested in believing otherwise.

Erick Erickson

This is a money quote

January 20, 2015

I think of myself as egalitarian more than complementarian, to adopt one polarity often used in discussing women in society, but given the current state of national discussion, I could not identify myself as a feminist:

Most young women would like to find a man who loves them, a man who wants to marry them, a man who is willing and able to provide them with a better life than a woman can have by herself.

No matter how much satisfaction she obtains from career achievement, she needs (and no, “need” is not too strong a word for her profound psychological urge) to have the love and support of a man. She wants babies. She wants to find a strong man, a masculine man who loves her so much that he is willing, for her sake, to shoulder the responsibilities inherent in the titles “husband” and “father.”

Feminism is not the solution to that young woman’s problem. [R. S. McCain, “Feminism’s Big Lie”]

Read the whole thing.

The Atlantic loses a subscriber

October 27, 2008

I have been pondering this for awhile, but had waited to see if things might change. Overall it’s still a good magazine, IMO, and I’m generally not one to make a global decision based on a single factor. After all, I can simply choose not to add to web traffic. But gutter politics can’t be supported, even tangentially, and the smear that clarified the issue for me is described here (link doesn’t go to the offender; you know where he is if you’re compelled to see it.)

A copy of this goes in the mail today.

Dear Mr. Bennet,
After several years as an appreciative subscriber to The Atlantic, I have recently informed your subscription department that I will not be renewing my subscription. In case it interests you to know, the reason for my decision not to renew is that your magazine has become a platform for the worst sort of political discourse. I am referring to the scurrilous smears of Governor Sarah Palin by one of your senior editors, Andrew Sullivan.
I read with interest the cover article he wrote in December, and while I was not persuaded that Senator Obama was necessarily the best choice for President, I was hopeful, like many Americans, that his nomination and candidacy would in fact matter, that it would mark a change in the tone of presidential politics. That his opponent was not closely identified with the right-wing of the GOP seemed to add to the likelihood that questions of substantive issues confronting America would predominate this election cycle.
Regrettably, substantive discussion has again taken a backseat to issues of image and hollow rhetoric. But while silly complaints about not wearing lapel pins or overusing one’s military experience can be excused, one cannot excuse vile, baseless innuendo posing as a simple question, nor the promotion of misogynistic sexualization found on YouTube. Clearly emotions are running high in this election, and no one is exempt. If asked, I would have predicted that in the course of carrying out professional duties, a senior editor of a magazine of The Atlantic’s stature and reputation would be able to avoid indulging the darkest of human impulses. I would have been wrong.

Your magazine has introduced me to several writers I enjoy because of their engaging writing and insights on topics I would not otherwise have been likely to consider carefully, such as James Fallows on China. Gregg Easterbrook is a favorite, not least because I lived in Buffalo for five years (including the four Super Bowl years) and can appreciate his feelings about western New York. Several of your frequent contributors will always attract my attention because of their insights and challenges to my thinking. In the future, however, I will not be reading them as a subscriber to The Atlantic.


I used their postage paid reply envelope to inform the subscription department. Hopefully the backlash against those who call attention to the ideas of the candidate does not extend to criticism of his enablers.

Do these political ads really work?

October 15, 2008

Nebraska’s 2nd district is apparently within reach for the Democrats this year. I’m fairly new to this area, but I take it this is not Jim Esch’s first crack at the seat held by Lee Terry. Now you should know Lee Terry has all the charisma of taupe walls in the break room. He has a face for radio and a voice for silent movies. I’m not sure what if anything has distinguished his congressional career, but since I’m new to the area that’s not revealing much about Lee Terry.

What kills me, though, is Esch’s ads where he’s sitting at a table with several elderly people sitting around it on the sides and behind him. He’s looking at the camera, intoning about the financial crisis and the claim that Terry wants to privatize Social Security. He, however, will protect it. So there’s the dichotomy, apparently, privatize Social Security or protect it.

Is that the same protection scheme the Democrats have engaged in for the past 30 years that has the system headed toward insolvency in the near future? Thanks, Jim, for offering to protect that for me. Don’t give me the opportunity to keep the money the government is confiscating and plan for my own future. Keep taking it, spending it on current accounts, and guaranteeing it’ll be insolvent when I retire.

I’m in the generation that has never expected Social Security to factor into my retirement. Well, some of my generation at least. I’m sure there are plenty blithley planning on that few hundred bucks a month at 62. But that’s on them. I’d be pleased to have more to contribute to my own retirement besides what I already have to set aside from my current take home pay. Feeling like I’m being robbed every month for a program that will be broke in a few years ticks me off. Then people like Jim Esch try to make me believe the government can protect the program for me when people like him have been kicking the can year after year for the past 30. Who really believes that anymore? How can an ad like that be expected to work? Yet it’s on the air here pretty often. It’s nonsense, but maybe it really does work.

The conservative case for Obama

October 14, 2008

according to Christopher Buckleyseems to be based on the following points: 1) he doesn’t like Sarah Palin, and 2) he doesn’t like the negative campaign the McCain ticket has engaged in. So even though Buckley believes John McCain is still conservative and is the type of person the country needs as a leader, he’s not going to vote for him because, um, he doesn’t want to associate himself with people like Sarah Palin and people who care about the character and judgement of a major party candidate.

But wait a minute, that’s just the explanation for why he’s not voting for McCain (or Palin, more probably). The conservative case for Obama is that he’s cool, went to Harvard, and wrote two books. Buckley grants the Harvard degree is unlikely to mean anything, and he doesn’t really explain the “first class temperament” criteria. The way he’s tossed people under the bus this year and unleashed his acolytes on anyone who dares exercise their first amendment rights in the process of criticizing him seems somewhat intemperate to me. But of course, I went to a state university and think Sarah Palin is tough and smart, so clearly I’m no judge of character.

Buckley relies on the temperament and intellect criteria as the basis for his hope that throughout his campaign Obama has been saying things he doesn’t really believe, or if he does believe them, once he sits down in the Oval Office and sees the world from that vantage point he’ll realize the nonsense that he’s been saying during the campaign, that he’s acted out during his political career, and will govern as a thrifty, pro-business, small government president.

I think I see why deep down Christopher Buckley realized no one gives a fig. More here from Ace.