Home | Hegemony | Archives | Blogroll | Resume | Links | RSS Feed | subscribe by email    


to Reason


blog roll

    Lonestar made a dark line of near beer for W..., 2004-10-26 15:34:45 | Main | so what else is new..., 2004-10-27 07:45:49

    keyes v. obama:

    "in principle", Keyes says, two women should not be allowed to marry, while a man and a woman who are infertile should be allowed to marry, because "in principle" a man and a woman could concievably pro-create. Except that in principle two women can procreate. They've done it with mice, I've known since 10th grade biology that "in principle" it's possible for two women to procreate. Have egg will travel. Ain't science cool.

    Anyway, this isn't really all that bad a debate. I wasn't at all familiar with Keyes previous to this debacle of an election, but at least on policy he really is batshit crazy, just off hand because, as he made expressly clear during the above topic, he has no discernable interest in particulars - you know, the really existing world - prefering a smattering of abstract generalities, which lends itself to an eloquent brand of sophistry that bores me to tears.

    Judging from the questions coming from the press conference with Obama the only issue facing the nation is gay marriage. Not one question on any other topic. Instead of flubbing around he could have just laid down something that made some semblance of arbitrary sense like his opponent: "in principle", say, if you and your partner can raise children you should have the same rights and privelidges presently extended to heterosexual partnerships. There's no reason why one should choose the principle of procreation over parenting.

:: posted by buermann @ 2004-10-26 18:02:16 CST | link

    go ahead, express that vague notion

    your turing test:

journals, notes,
other curmudgeonry

- A Timeline -

Oil for Nothing:
US Holds On Humanitarian Supplies
Iraq: 1997-2001

the good book
and other cultural

The Autobiography
Mother Jones

Contact Info: