I think I've mentioned on other posts that I catch the Ellen Degeners show on Mondays because my daughter likes it and has it on when I'm working out. Well, as long as she has her homework done. I've also mentioned some of the goofy things that come out of the show, and Ellen in particular. Recently, there was another.
Ellen was quite upset that people in areas hit by disaster weren't allowed to bring their dogs to the shelters. This is a travesty, I guess, because people and their "animal companions" should not have to be separated in such trying times.
As though everyone can be around dogs. Cats, for that matter. There are plenty of people with allergies to the animals and still others who just are afraid or uncomfortable with them. On top of that, from what I've seen of how people don't train their pets, there's not a chance in hell I'd want to be in a shelter where people are allowed to bring their pets. It'd be bad enough if I had to put up with their untrained kids. No need to inflict dogs and cats on me too.
There's a lot of this sort of thing with the animal rights crowd. They believe that animals are equivalent to humans. They have the same worth so they should be treated equally. They can believe that if they like, but there's no way you can convince me a cat or dog is equivalent to a human. You might have some luck with higher primates, sea mammals, and maybe even crows and ravens, but pets? Nah. They may be lovable, but that doesn't make them the same as humans. Inanimate objects can be lovable. They're not the same as humans, either.
Seems to me the solution for this is that the animal rights crowd goes into disaster areas and provides shelters for pets somewhere near where the people shelters are. Then the owners can spend time with the pets while not causing problems for the humans who are their actual equals.
Friday, May 18, 2012
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Irrational Behavior and Healthcare
Can someone explain to me the philosophical opposition that the GOP has to the Obama healthcare plan? I don't mean political opposition to the plan. That I get. Anything Democrats favor, the GOP oppposes. That wasn't always the way of things in Congress, but that's the way it is now.
What I mean is, what's the philosophy to the opposition? For instance, the GOP is philosophically in favor of banning gay marriage because it believes that government has an interest in recognizing only a marriage between one man and one woman. I can argue the validity of that position, but it is a philosophy.
There doesn't seem to be any philosophy underpinning the opposition to the healthcare plan. The arguments have been based on states' rights, a long dead doctrine resolved once by the Civil War and again by Brown v Board of Education and its progeny, or that there's a violation of individual rights in requiring the purchase of health insurance.
This Supreme Court, which can't even read the one sentence Second Amendment accurately, may well be dumb enough to revive states' rights, but that's still not a philosphical opposition to the plan itself. If the plan were changed to be universal, government administered healthcare paid for by a tax, the states' rights argument would die on the vine but the opposition would not. As a tax paid program it would be no different from any other government plan, such as agricultural subsidies, defense spending, or WIC. Yet the GOP remains adamantly opposed to providing healthcare to as many Americans as possible, operating in some sort of logical bubble that separates the availability of medical providers from the expense of paying for them.
The opposition based on the requirement of individual purchase of coverage is not a philosophical objection, either. It's convenience. The GOP doesn't oppose mandatory auto insurance. For that matter it doesn't oppose requiring fees to register vehicles or to obtain a driver's license. These are all required purchases. Again, the current Supreme Court is dumb enough, and ideological enough, to buy this argument, but it's still not a philosophy.
Why does the GOP oppose Americans having healthcare available and paid for in a sustainable manner? (Not that this plan is necessarily either, but it's an attempt, and none of the opposition to it is couched in any failure it may be in that attempt.)
What I mean is, what's the philosophy to the opposition? For instance, the GOP is philosophically in favor of banning gay marriage because it believes that government has an interest in recognizing only a marriage between one man and one woman. I can argue the validity of that position, but it is a philosophy.
There doesn't seem to be any philosophy underpinning the opposition to the healthcare plan. The arguments have been based on states' rights, a long dead doctrine resolved once by the Civil War and again by Brown v Board of Education and its progeny, or that there's a violation of individual rights in requiring the purchase of health insurance.
This Supreme Court, which can't even read the one sentence Second Amendment accurately, may well be dumb enough to revive states' rights, but that's still not a philosphical opposition to the plan itself. If the plan were changed to be universal, government administered healthcare paid for by a tax, the states' rights argument would die on the vine but the opposition would not. As a tax paid program it would be no different from any other government plan, such as agricultural subsidies, defense spending, or WIC. Yet the GOP remains adamantly opposed to providing healthcare to as many Americans as possible, operating in some sort of logical bubble that separates the availability of medical providers from the expense of paying for them.
The opposition based on the requirement of individual purchase of coverage is not a philosophical objection, either. It's convenience. The GOP doesn't oppose mandatory auto insurance. For that matter it doesn't oppose requiring fees to register vehicles or to obtain a driver's license. These are all required purchases. Again, the current Supreme Court is dumb enough, and ideological enough, to buy this argument, but it's still not a philosophy.
Why does the GOP oppose Americans having healthcare available and paid for in a sustainable manner? (Not that this plan is necessarily either, but it's an attempt, and none of the opposition to it is couched in any failure it may be in that attempt.)
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Romney's Character Problem
The recent stories in the Washington Post about Mitt Romney being a high school bully reinforce a character problem that the GOP "base" recognized throughout the primary campaign.
Here's the skinny on the Post story. Five people, four of them willing to speak with attribution, state that Mitt Romney ran down and pinned a boy who had long hair and behaved effeminately. He then cut the boy's hair while the boy screamed for him to get off. He is also claimed to have said "Atta girl" to another non-conformist boy.
In response, Romney said he didn't remember the incidents.
Now, that means one of two things. Either he's lying about remembering the incidents or he engaged in harrassment of other students so often that he doesn't recall these particular instances. Neither is speaking well of his character.
But the GOP "base" knew this about him four years ago and has continued to recognize it. They overwhelmingly want to vote for someone else. Sure, he says all the things he thinks they want to hear, but they know he was governor of Massachusetts and know his record there. He was considerably more centrist to left then, committing the cardinal sin of proposing and implementing a healthcare plan that is remarkably similar to the Obama plan he now opposes. Semantics and dodges haven't fooled the GOP "base". This is a guy who will say what he has to be elected, with little chance that he actually believes what he's saying.
So now Romney has not only the longstanding distrust of the "base", he has shown that he's either a liar or someone who goes along with a crowd and persecutes the outsiders. The latter might play well with the "base", who are all about conformity to their norms, but it's not going to play well to the vast majority of voters.
Here's the skinny on the Post story. Five people, four of them willing to speak with attribution, state that Mitt Romney ran down and pinned a boy who had long hair and behaved effeminately. He then cut the boy's hair while the boy screamed for him to get off. He is also claimed to have said "Atta girl" to another non-conformist boy.
In response, Romney said he didn't remember the incidents.
Now, that means one of two things. Either he's lying about remembering the incidents or he engaged in harrassment of other students so often that he doesn't recall these particular instances. Neither is speaking well of his character.
But the GOP "base" knew this about him four years ago and has continued to recognize it. They overwhelmingly want to vote for someone else. Sure, he says all the things he thinks they want to hear, but they know he was governor of Massachusetts and know his record there. He was considerably more centrist to left then, committing the cardinal sin of proposing and implementing a healthcare plan that is remarkably similar to the Obama plan he now opposes. Semantics and dodges haven't fooled the GOP "base". This is a guy who will say what he has to be elected, with little chance that he actually believes what he's saying.
So now Romney has not only the longstanding distrust of the "base", he has shown that he's either a liar or someone who goes along with a crowd and persecutes the outsiders. The latter might play well with the "base", who are all about conformity to their norms, but it's not going to play well to the vast majority of voters.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Best Game Ever
I was originally going to post on Mitt Romney's big problem today but I'm pushing that off a day because something more important happened on Mother's Day.
Manchester United failed to capture yet another English Premier League title. Boo-hoo. I'm a consistent anti-Man U man when it comes to EPL. Rooting for Man U is like rooting for the Yankees. Of course, rooting for Manchester City, who did win the title, is like rooting for the Red Sox, but that's better than the Yankees.
Here's the final standings for the league: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/tables/_/league/eng.1/barclays-premier-league?cc=5901
But the game that won it. Oh, the game that won it. Man U played Sunderland at the same time Man City played Queens Park Rangers. Man U won its game 1-0. By that point City was down 2-1 to QPR. The game started the scoring with City up 1-0 after the first half, but QPR scored on a terrible header by a City defender that gave the QPR striker a wide open shot at the net. A tie would be a win for Man U, so City had to score again to win the title.
QPR's Joey Barton did his best to help City, too. He threw an elbow and Carlos Tevez and was tossed with a red card, then kneed Tevez in the back as he was leaving the field. City was pumped after that and kept the pressure on, but it was QPR, who were fighting not to be relegated, who took advantage. QPR scored a second goal while short haned.
By the 90th minute it remained 2-1 QPR with 5 minutes of stoppage time to be played. And that's when City came alive. Unbelievably City scored 2 goals in the stoppage time. The second came with time nearly out altogether.
I'm an Arsenal fan (finished third), but it was nice to see City win the title for the first time in 44 years. It was even nicer to see Man U not win the title, made all the sweeter by their expectation that they had it in the bag with their 1-0 win and City being down 2-1 at the end of 90. It was a hell of a finish. And, as a bonus, QPR didn't get relegated even though they lost. I love that team's name.
Manchester United failed to capture yet another English Premier League title. Boo-hoo. I'm a consistent anti-Man U man when it comes to EPL. Rooting for Man U is like rooting for the Yankees. Of course, rooting for Manchester City, who did win the title, is like rooting for the Red Sox, but that's better than the Yankees.
Here's the final standings for the league: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/tables/_/league/eng.1/barclays-premier-league?cc=5901
But the game that won it. Oh, the game that won it. Man U played Sunderland at the same time Man City played Queens Park Rangers. Man U won its game 1-0. By that point City was down 2-1 to QPR. The game started the scoring with City up 1-0 after the first half, but QPR scored on a terrible header by a City defender that gave the QPR striker a wide open shot at the net. A tie would be a win for Man U, so City had to score again to win the title.
QPR's Joey Barton did his best to help City, too. He threw an elbow and Carlos Tevez and was tossed with a red card, then kneed Tevez in the back as he was leaving the field. City was pumped after that and kept the pressure on, but it was QPR, who were fighting not to be relegated, who took advantage. QPR scored a second goal while short haned.
By the 90th minute it remained 2-1 QPR with 5 minutes of stoppage time to be played. And that's when City came alive. Unbelievably City scored 2 goals in the stoppage time. The second came with time nearly out altogether.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Double Standard
Many times over the years I've heard the lamentations of the right that the "liberal media" has a double standard when it comes to political peccadilloes. Allegedly the media doesn't pursue Democrats who have affairs while persuing Republicans with zeal for doing the same thing.
That's not really accurate, as the case of what's-his-name, the NY Congressman who sent sexually provocative pictures of himself to a woman, shows. He was hounded out of office with gusto, and rightfully so for someone engaging in sexual harrassment. Anthony Weiner. That was the guy's humorously appropriate name.
But let's, arguendo, presume it to be true. There's a good reason why the affairs of Democrats and the affairs of Republicans are viewed differently. While Democrats adhere to a social agenda of tolerance Republicans maintain a line of condemnation for social behavior that doesn't conform with the "ideal" of a married man and woman with 2.5 children (more if you're really being fruitful and multiplying). No gay marriage. No polygamous marriage. No men and women living together without being married. In fact, no pre-marital sex.
Democrats don't condemn any of that stuff. They're not necessarily in favor of it. Polygamous marriage, for one, hasn't much support. But Democrats don't condemn it.
So when a politician has an affair, and especially if he has a gay affair, but he's a member of a political party that generates a lot of political capital condemning that sort of thing, it's not only to be expected that media organizations would make a big deal about it. A Democrat, who hasn't condemned that, isn't nearly as much of a story. He's not being hypocritical.
Look, it's like this. If a Democrat is big on the environmental protection agenda but is riding around in a low fuel efficiency SUV, then the media's going to be all over that. I've seen it more than a few times. But a Republican who's not an environmentalist has no such problems. It's the same kind of thing with sex. If you're going to tout a line of sexual intolerance, don't be surprised when you're hoist on a petard for engaging in the same behavior you condemned.
That's not really accurate, as the case of what's-his-name, the NY Congressman who sent sexually provocative pictures of himself to a woman, shows. He was hounded out of office with gusto, and rightfully so for someone engaging in sexual harrassment. Anthony Weiner. That was the guy's humorously appropriate name.
But let's, arguendo, presume it to be true. There's a good reason why the affairs of Democrats and the affairs of Republicans are viewed differently. While Democrats adhere to a social agenda of tolerance Republicans maintain a line of condemnation for social behavior that doesn't conform with the "ideal" of a married man and woman with 2.5 children (more if you're really being fruitful and multiplying). No gay marriage. No polygamous marriage. No men and women living together without being married. In fact, no pre-marital sex.
Democrats don't condemn any of that stuff. They're not necessarily in favor of it. Polygamous marriage, for one, hasn't much support. But Democrats don't condemn it.
So when a politician has an affair, and especially if he has a gay affair, but he's a member of a political party that generates a lot of political capital condemning that sort of thing, it's not only to be expected that media organizations would make a big deal about it. A Democrat, who hasn't condemned that, isn't nearly as much of a story. He's not being hypocritical.
Look, it's like this. If a Democrat is big on the environmental protection agenda but is riding around in a low fuel efficiency SUV, then the media's going to be all over that. I've seen it more than a few times. But a Republican who's not an environmentalist has no such problems. It's the same kind of thing with sex. If you're going to tout a line of sexual intolerance, don't be surprised when you're hoist on a petard for engaging in the same behavior you condemned.
Friday, May 11, 2012
Dazed and Patriotic
On the trip to Disney last month we picked up a rock station in SC. It was the usual classic rock kind of station in its play list but was quite different from what I'm used to in the Mid-Atlantic where I live.
SC is heavily dependent on federal government spending, as are many of the most anti-federal government states. Among that spending that keeps SC afloat is a lot of military spending, so much so that the state has a web site listing them and hotels nearby. http://www.sciway.net/gov/mil_bases.html
That makes for a strange targeting in a rock radio station. I know rock long ago became a corporate operation, but a pro-military operation? This station all but played the national anthem at each commercial break. Kind of funny, considering how many early rock, and especially classic rock, songs are anti-war anthems.
Then again, our local classic rock station in Baltimore has been getting more Know Nothing in its orientation. Some of that is the ads of Fox45, the Sinclair Broadcasting Know Nothing pandering station, but its also sympathetic interviews with the Fox45 anchors and comments by the morning guy.
So much for rock and roll rebellion. More like rock and roll reactionary.
SC is heavily dependent on federal government spending, as are many of the most anti-federal government states. Among that spending that keeps SC afloat is a lot of military spending, so much so that the state has a web site listing them and hotels nearby. http://www.sciway.net/gov/mil_bases.html
That makes for a strange targeting in a rock radio station. I know rock long ago became a corporate operation, but a pro-military operation? This station all but played the national anthem at each commercial break. Kind of funny, considering how many early rock, and especially classic rock, songs are anti-war anthems.
Then again, our local classic rock station in Baltimore has been getting more Know Nothing in its orientation. Some of that is the ads of Fox45, the Sinclair Broadcasting Know Nothing pandering station, but its also sympathetic interviews with the Fox45 anchors and comments by the morning guy.
So much for rock and roll rebellion. More like rock and roll reactionary.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Tequila Advertising
I don't know why but there's been an increase in the number of tequila ads on channels I watch. Probably it's mostly ESPN, but some other networks, too.
To take a page from the Michael Imperioli ads, what's with these things? In particular, in recent days I've seen one for Avion Tequila that is a head scratcher.
I'm no connoisseur of tequila, so I have no idea of the relative quality of these various drinks, but this Avion ad certainly makes me think it'd be among the last I'd try.
The theme of the ad is bondage. Straight up. A guy is tied up by a woman in sexy black leather. He's teased with some of the tequila and then it's fade to black. Damned if I can figure out the message there. Avoid this drink at all costs?
To take a page from the Michael Imperioli ads, what's with these things? In particular, in recent days I've seen one for Avion Tequila that is a head scratcher.
I'm no connoisseur of tequila, so I have no idea of the relative quality of these various drinks, but this Avion ad certainly makes me think it'd be among the last I'd try.
The theme of the ad is bondage. Straight up. A guy is tied up by a woman in sexy black leather. He's teased with some of the tequila and then it's fade to black. Damned if I can figure out the message there. Avoid this drink at all costs?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)