Things Heard: e181v1n2
Monday, July 11th, 2011 at
10:36 pm
Good morning. Well our road trip continues, now we are in the UP.
- Much ado about nothing.
- How to deflect and evade, liberal style. Marriage and out-of-wedlock childbirth is at a historical high and it seems quite plausible that it is higher than prior to 1860. But apparently even suggesting that might be the case is out of bounds. Why? If it is true, acknowleding the same isn’t racism … evading the question, however, is.
- Lo and behold, another highly popular liberal rhetorical technique, the kindergarden insult (and that’s just the title). What I don’t get is the longer lifetimes touted for CFLs in places in which they are turned off an on a lot (like a bathroom in a house with teenagers) … it seems to me they don’t outlast incandescents by much if at all.
- Ironic use of the term “might be photoshop” … but yes, I’d likely want one.
- In which “not vice versa” might be better coined in terms of sets and subsets.
- Sneaky Pete, meet sneaky Ivan.
- Theological speculation should not lead to violence.
- Goes without saying.
- Just like conceal carry bans, … another practice supported without reason.
- Ms Bachman, and I wonder … if find myself being drawn to a more and more sympathetic stance regarding Ms Bachman the more I see silly and spurious charges and claims made against her. However, I suspect the turned table situation (my linking many charges against the regrettable Democrat in the White House), has not in fact been influential in leading, for example, my two frequent liberal commenters (at my own blog) to support him. As my suspicion is that they would in the absence of such claims still (alas) support him. But I wonder about the less committed readers.
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
But it’s not true. The pledge’s statement was fabricated (the study they cite didn’t even go back to 1860, and the study author confirmed that her work in no way supported the contention in the pledge). I linked to that statement in the post, which makes your plea for “truth” all the more adorable, as precisely one of us actually bothered to look into the factual veracity of the claim. Us liberals — we just can’t handle when people fabricate evidence to suggest that the Black family was better off while enslaved.
It was illegal for slaves to be married in most contexts. And in any event, the pledge didn’t talk about marriage — it talked about “two parent homes”, which were, as noted, mostly a slave woman and her master-rapist. So even if it is true that more children were being raised in “two-parent homes” (which I’m still unsure about), saying that the current state of affairs — even with (horrors!) out of wedlock births — is inferior to the slave family system because the former’s cycle of rape had stability is abhorrent beyond words, and just demonstrates the massive moral bankruptcy behind this movement and the stunted (anti-)”family values” it purports to represent.
Exactly right, David. To bring that up in that pledge was unconscionable but typical.