Insert Rush Pun Here
Colin Powell:
Can we continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh? Is this really the kind of party that we want to be when these kinds of spokespersons seem to appeal to our lesser instincts rather than our better instincts?
I don't listen to Rush, but is he that bad? Don't parties need partisans to make arguments and rally the troops?
I'm sorry I don't listen to Rush, because I would have loved to hear his response.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:09 AM
6 Comments:
is he that bad? YES
Don't parties need partisans to make arguments and rally the troops? DEPENDS ON WHICH TROOPS YOU WANT TO RALLY. (ONES WHO SHOUT "TREASON" AND "KILL HIM"?)
I would have loved to hear his response. WHY? YOU CAN PREDICT IT. HE'LL SAY ITS BECAUSE POWELL IS BLACK.
One of the other blogs I read is written by a Catholic priest, and focuses on issues related to the liturgy.
Just yesterday, one of the commenters in his combox began by saying, "Fr. [N], I think of you as a Catholic Rush Limbaugh!" I thought oh, here we go again. After reading a few paragraphs of the comment, I realized that the writer honestly meant it as a compliment! I guess I've lived too long in the big coastal cities, because it never occurred to me that this might be what he meant.
Anon: Excellent parody.
LK: Why would anyone bother to read another blog when they've got Pajama Guy?
I suppose we haven't been giving the Catholic Church's perspective on many issues, have we? Here's a topic we can discuss: the only folks I've heard who can make a good, concise, principled case for the current policy on research using embryonic stem cells are Jesuits.
Good point, anonymous. If you go against the right, they call you names. If you go against the left, they burn your church down.
QueensGuy wrote:
Here's a topic we can discuss: the only folks I've heard who can make a good, concise, principled case for the current policy on research using embryonic stem cells are Jesuits.
The other sides in the bioethics debate rarely seem to be interested in any systematic ethics. New Jersey was the first to pass a law that allows "therapeutic" cloning but forbids "reproductive" cloning, which means that if scientists were to clone a human embryo, they would be legally required to kill it once it reached a certain age. The debate about partial-birth abortion and born-alive infant protection (which Obama opposed) is a matter of sequence: if a woman in Kansas with a viable pregnancy wants to not have a baby, the doctor is permitted to abort the baby at 1:10 PM and deliver its body at 1:15 PM, but to deliver the baby at 1:00 and kill it at 1:05 would be murder.
Even if these are defensible choices, they do not appear to be specific applications of a general view of ethics. At West Point they still study military ethics, and if a new weapon were invented, they could apply their existing ethical standards to its uses. But the biomedical establishment seems to invent new ethical rules each time there's a new invention.
I'm not saying that everyone who supports stem cell research doesn't care about ethics. It's just that I don't see any systematic ethics there. (Of course, one can also argue that systematic ethics is bad, but even that position is an ethical philosophy, which I don't think that most people with opinions on this issue share.)
Post a Comment
<< Home