Green Day
One of the more noxious bits of post election spin has been that it was a conservative event.
Bah.
The League of Conservation Voters had a "Dirty Dozen" list of the most noxious anti-environment trolls in Congress. (There are actually 15 on the list, but Bob Ney and Tom DeLay resigned, and one targeted race was a primary, so the there were indeed twelve races for Nov. 7.) Those twelve ranged from the odious Rick Santorum to the laughable Katherine Harris to the vile Richard Pombo.
Of the twelve targeted, nine lost, two are still undecided, and only one (so far) will be returning to Washington. Only Stephen Colbert had a better batting average. So unless "conservative" has suddenly reverted to a meaning that again reflects its etymological relationship to "conservation," it is tough to call this turn conservative.
On the other hand, as SusanG @ dKos argues, this spin is likely to make it easier down the road for folks who think of themselves as conservative to vote blue. So have at it, folks.
(h/t Conscious Earth)
Bah.
The League of Conservation Voters had a "Dirty Dozen" list of the most noxious anti-environment trolls in Congress. (There are actually 15 on the list, but Bob Ney and Tom DeLay resigned, and one targeted race was a primary, so the there were indeed twelve races for Nov. 7.) Those twelve ranged from the odious Rick Santorum to the laughable Katherine Harris to the vile Richard Pombo.
Of the twelve targeted, nine lost, two are still undecided, and only one (so far) will be returning to Washington. Only Stephen Colbert had a better batting average. So unless "conservative" has suddenly reverted to a meaning that again reflects its etymological relationship to "conservation," it is tough to call this turn conservative.
On the other hand, as SusanG @ dKos argues, this spin is likely to make it easier down the road for folks who think of themselves as conservative to vote blue. So have at it, folks.
(h/t Conscious Earth)
posted by bluememe at 11/10/2006
2 Comments:
Gimme a clue.
Labels are created/invented for use/application/redefinition in order to obfuscate/confuse/cause contention, all so that you will not be watching the ball that counts. As long as "they" can get you worked up over labels ("our" side / "their" side) you will miss the few opportunities that come along to make a difference by catching them red handed. In this case, my use of "them" is defined simply by identifying those who are DOING wrong AS INDIVIDUALS. Groups are a figment used to hide one's own responsibility. We don't need any labels beyond right and wrong (and that IS NOT black and white thinking), e.g. setting forest fires is wrong and you don't need a pc dictionary to know that, or to decide whose "side" the arsonist is on. Wrong doesn't get quote marks because some things are obvious to the point that only arsonists would argue with you.
This is why I need a clue: you are very, very smart but the most excited you seem to get is when the metaphysical alignment of labels seems favorable to you. We are left to guess what arrangements you might find favorable, but I actually don't care. What I want to know is why you fall for the label game over and over.
So please, tell me why you think it happens that you prefer the picture on the menu to the food on the plate. Is it a diet or something?
TA
Well, I follow the logic of the comment above, but I don't see his/her point. I have never found you to be blindsided by labels, actually quite the opposite.
But I do agree with one point they offered, you are indeed very, very, smart and I would add an excellent writer as well.
And no dear reader, I am not his mother.
Keep up the great work Blue!
Post a Comment
<< Home