Monday, October 27, 2008


Over the past couple of months, I've been reading quite a few political blogs. I tend to read the comments as well, and while there are some very intelligent and well-thought responses, a great many of the comments are intolerant and hateful. It's depressing to wade through through the sensless comments, and get stirred up to say something...only to realize that it would take me
quite some time to labor over an intelligent response, and wind up deleting half of what I wrote,
because in the end, isn't fitting. I really hate venemous conflict.

Part of the difficutlty is that I'm very much concerned over the upcoming election. I've stated before that I don't trust Barak Obama, and the more I see, the less I like. I'm afraid of being someone infected by overly partisan information, but when I look at the other's even worse. There are those in the country who are predicting civil war, in the not so distant future,
and I read all too many people who are calling to "Get your gun and be ready for a fight". It could come to that. But I certainly hope not, and I'd rather avoid it.

I don't really think that if Barak Obama wins the election, he's going singlehandedly repeal freedom of the press, or religion, and unleash the FBI on everyone who disagrees with him.
The rule of law isn't going to evaporate overnight.

I'm somewhat distracted by another question, one that came up about the logic of what is compulsory and forbidden:
If (A) Forbidden, then (not-A) is compulsory
If (A) is compulsory, then (not-A) is forbidden.

A couple of specific examples were used. Those are hard to refute, but in generally, this
kind of argument is tricky to make. From my studies as an amateur logician, this looks like a branch of deontic logic, which resembles modal logic and isn' strictly aristotelian. This analysis doesn't account for the optional: That which is neither obligatory nor forbiddent. Also, there's a possible question of dichotmimes... there may be a middle ground between A and not-A. So, I'm sucpicious of the logic, though I can't quite refute it. I'll have to set this one aside.

I still see the debate on same-sex marriage in California, and I really object to the rhetoric that anyone who doesn't approve of it is a bigot and trying to deprive homosexuals of equal civil rights, or that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. I don't have a clear, sound refutation of these argoments, and if I did, those who advocate same-sex marriage wouldn't listen anyway. And I don't have much of a way to appeal to the undecideds.

I also came across an article (Helen McAffrey, writing for the Philadelphia Inquirer, which deplored the demonization of Sarah Palin She expressed suprise that, since since Gov. Palin is an example of what has been considered a feminist ideal (combining motherhood and a career) that she would be so viciously vilified. She objected to a student who wore a T-shirt with the slogan, "Sarah Palin is a ****, and expressed her opinion that Gov. Palin ought to be treated with respect and consideration. I was suprised to read how many of the commenters on this article defended the attackers. When did obscenities become accepted in academic discourse? The next step after violent and degrading words is violent and destructive actions, and it's not all that big a step.

I've been pondering on how radical feminism...the man-hating, lesbian, genitalia focused, pro-choice and anti-marriage wing of it... is dehumanizing to both men and women. In hindsight, it shouldn't have been all that surprising that someone who represents the opposite evokes such mindless hatred. Feminist, behold thyself.

I saw in another bit of news that the "Code Pink" organization that had announced its intention to shut down the Marine Recruiting Station in Berkeley, California, is moving out of its offices there. Yes, as I recall, that WAS the strategy advocated by those who opposed the Vietnam war, "declare victory and get out". I'm sure it will work just as well this time around. Didn't anyone warn these people that real peacemaking can be *hard*?

No comments: