|
|
March 23, 2007Couple of quick thoughts on a busy dayCouple of quick thoughts: Dean Barnett says precisely what I was thinking about John and Elizabeth Edwards and I’m not sure I understand why anyone thinks its their business to opine on what Mr & Mrs Edwards “should” be doing in the face of her distressing diagnosis. They “should” be doing precisely what they want to be doing, what they think is the best course for them. I put this right up there with people who think they know “better” about what parents of a Downs Syndrome baby “should” do (”why give birth and let the poor thing People need to stop “should”ing all over each other. AJ Strata points out that Pelosi is not as accommodating toward her bad-press visitors as President Bush was to Sheehan and her crew. No surprise there, nor is the pass she gets from the press for herding off and arresting the noisemakers. She’s getting lots of passes, it seems. Ann Althouse liveblogged An Inconvenient Truth. Reading it I can only say once again that if this matter is as “urgent” as Gore would like us to believe, he’d be making a great deal more noise about conservation rather than carbon offsets, and we’d be seeing him and his green companions doing more than buying offsets while they fly their private jets and tell us all to take mass transit. If it was that “urgent” they’d be telling you to build your house along the lines of George W. Bush’s house in Crawford, Texas, rather than along the lines of…well, you can finish the thought. Clearly the film is a positioning piece meant to achieve public acquiescence on future legislation. As I’ve said many times before: If the people promoting the hysteria on warming were serious - if the issue were a real one and not simply a political tool, then the hyper-concerned folks would be welcoming and heralding thoughtful environmental programs and helpful policies from any-and-all quarters, even - gasp - from the right. Even - gaspgasp - from George W. Bush. (You know, the guy…who keeps an eco-friendly ranch and is restoring the destroyed wetlands of Iraq and is hated by the enviros.) You probably have no idea that President Bush has been working with China, India, Japan, South Korea and Australia on a creative - not Kyoto - environmental policy. These folks will not convince me that “man-made” global warming is real or that anything we do can halt it, particularly when other planets are also warming up, and particularly when their own actions belie the “urgency” of action. The proof is in the politics of it. When you have a real emergency you don’t cry “all hands on deck…except for you, Mr. Bush, your help is neither needed or appreciated because we don’t like you.” Clearly, this is not a real emergency. This is not that hard to figure out. More good economic news but - because it’s the wrong president - it’s presented with the requisite “but…”. We won’t see the “buts” retired on good economic news until a Democrat is in the White House. Too bad Bush is so inarticulate, but then again, he has more pressing things to do with his presidency than crow about how great he is. And, you know…the war in Iraq, and the one in DC. I’d call it a full plate. Oh, and “Pork” Pelosi has has managed to spread enough money around to get her legislation passed: “Dear President Bush, the war must end ten weeks before the 2008 elections, Love Nancy.” Tiresome stuff. Today and throughout the weekend (and possibly into next week) there will be some tinkering with the site. Please bear with me. Sorry for the light posting. I hate it when personal stuff intervenes with my blogging playtime but sometimes we do have to answer to regular life. Care to leave a comment on what you’re reading or listening to, these days? I’m always interested in knowing what you guys are up to! Meanwhile, enjoy the literally effortless singing of the dashing Simon Keenlyside as Guglielmo in a 1996 production of Cosi Fan Tutte More of that good stuff, here, and this recent production is also terrific. Also, enjoy Keenlyside as a more elegant and less dark Don Giovanni than we have previously seen from Bryn Terfel in that part. I love them both in the role, but I will say Bryn also sings a great, disdainful Leporello, as we see here: http://theanchoressonline.com/2007/03/23/couple-of-quick-thoughts-on-a-busy-day/trackback/ 6 Responses to “Couple of quick thoughts on a busy day” |
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Anchoress,
I like your point about all the (although my examples would cut the other way) “shoulds”-people have to make their own way through this life as best they can. And they’re the one who have to answer for it, ultimately.
Reading- Right now I’m reading “Sunne in Splendour” by Sharon Kay Penman-her books are like crack! Thanks for recommending her work to me. Although, it does seriously cut into my job hunt time!
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Outstanding singing. I love when you post these!
It’s hard to take “Global Warming” too serious these days, isn’t it?
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:34 pm
I’m not sure I understand why anyone thinks its their business to opine on what Mr & Mrs Edwards “should” be doing in the face of her distressing diagnosis. They “should” be doing precisely what they want to be doing, what they think is the best course for them.
.
I respectfully and humbly disagree. It is their business to opine because the Edwards made it their business. Unlike the Down’s Syndrome and coma examples, the Edwards’ have made this very public in the midst of his political campaign, thereby inviting public comment on the matter. If it is apparently permissible for persons to comment and opine favorably, why should it be impermissible for them to comment and opine unfavorably? Why should it be wrong for people to say out loud that they think that their conduct is unseemly?
.
I did not have a public opinion before, but I do now. What “should” they be doing? Should they be doing “precisely what they want to be doing, what they think is the best course for them”? No. They should not be engaging in such morally relativistic behavior. They should not do whatever they want, they should do what is right; they should do what is good.
.
And whatever that right thing might be, it most certainly is not exploiting this matter for political gain, even if they think that would be the “best course” for them. That might be politically advantageous and expedient, but it is in no sense a “good” thing. And it is everyone’s business to give opinions expecting the good of people, rather than the morally relativism of “do what you want to do.”
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:22 pm
The Party Of Treason
The foolish ‘216′ should be remembered forever as a disgrace.
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:32 pm
I may be a little harsh invoking conceptions of treason. I certainly feel if you believe your Country was mistaken in it’s efforts, you should work to change it.
However, in today’s vote, this seemed entirely unethical. A bribe of pork for political sabotage, to undermine a Republican in Office.
Democrats are unethically trying to force the surrender of the USA, because of their obsessive, self serving, political greed.
The Freedom of the Iraqi People, the Future of the Free World, the Fight to stop Radical Muslim Militancy, isn’t relevant to the Democrat Partisans, who remain bedevilled to destroy a Republican President.
Ms. Pelosi and Company crave power, oppressive taxation, appeasement, banning light bulbs, etc…
The image of Speaker Nancy, posing with Children in the House when the Democrat Majority took power, was a truly prophetic metaphor.
I have read a number of points of view on ‘Swindle Friday’, and agree with most.
Except the conception the fine Captain offered as a potential problem, for Democrats being seen as the one’s abandoning OUR FINEST in harm’s way.
I feel, with the evidence of the past 6 years, the MSM will spin the blame unto this President.
They will shape the issue, without mentioning the bribes, the cloudy plan, the tip off to terrorists, the sign of weakness, the corrupt political agenda, etc., and present this as being a positive.
It is sick, when one thinks of the millions of lives, the future of the Iraqi People and the USA, being placed at risk for Democrat political opportunism.
March 24th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Dear Nancy,
If you can get 67 Senators to sustain an impeachment, those restrictions might actually mean something. Until then, not so much.
Sincerely, President Bush”