. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nap Time!!!

Saturday, April 12, 2008
You lose

This has to be some of the worst damage control I've ever seen. "My comments were ill-considered, so let me speak more clearly by emphasizing that yes, my comments were exactly what I meant, in that the activities of small-town folks aren't due to culture like they say, but due to bitterness. Also, small-town folks feel they aren't listened to."

Perhaps even more troubling is his suggestion that the government should serve the role of religion and family.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 4/12/2008 12:46:00 PM #
Comments (15)
. . .
You like Hillary so the agenda is obvious. However, what Obama said is exactly correct and is taught at UCB. So what is the problem? That is how culture works. Hillary is acting like a Right-Wing NAZI fascist.
Meritocracy and multiculturalism do not go hand in hand.
Beetle, you attract the most entertaining commenters.

Any idea when results are coming out?
Results should be out Tuesday.

As for me liking Hillary... Haha! Yes, I have an "agenda." But since I don't actually ask you to trust me, I wonder why it really matters.

I actually can't tell if "However, what Obama said is exactly correct and is taught at UCB. So what is the problem?" is meant to be parody.
He didn't say government should serve the role of religion and family. What he said is that when government fails to do its job, people are forced to rely more heavily on the other pillars of their life (religion and family for many voters). Of course, those two things are completely inadequate for, say, righting the economy or stopping an unpopular war, which is, whether you personally agree with it or not, what many of the voters Obama is going after want to do.
If they can't do what government is supposed to do, why would folks rely on them when the government doesn't do it?
Um... because the alternative is to completely give up hope for everything. Look, I'm from a religious family (I'm not religious but I deeply respect religious belief and feel personally insulted when people denigrate it) and the consistent response of, say, my grandmother when things get bad for her is that she just has to have faith and she'll pull through. It gives her emotional strength, but it doesn't fix her economic problems. Most of the time, what fixes her economic problems is her family (my mom and her siblings) moving in with her for a month, or helping her pay her bills, or something like that, which obviously "fixes" in the short term whatever crisis she's going through but is akin to plugging a hole with your finger, and, by the way, places unnecessary stress (economic and emotional) on her kids. Like I said, family, religion and government are all pillars, and in my opinion all are very important. But you can't just toss one out and demand that the others pick up the slack.

I mean, do you honestly think that religion and family are going to end the war in Iraq? Whether you're for staying in or getting out, do you really think that faith and family are going to either win the war or lead to our withdrawal?

And since when do you say "folks"? Are you gearing up to run for office or something, trying to sound more down-homey?
I've said "folks" for a long time. It seems functional enough.

Religion and family are not going to end the war in Iraq. That's why it made no sense to say that folks rely on religion and family when the government doesn't come through.
I'm not sure what we're arguing about. What Obama said was that people rely on religion and family when government fails, but religion and family aren't enough to compensate for the absence of responsible government. It might not make sense for people to rely on religion and family when government doesn't come through, but that doesn't mean they won't do it, and if it's true that they rely on religion and family when government fails, then it makes total sense to say that they do. Are you disputing that people turn to religion and family when government fails?
They turn to religion and family because that's what religion and family are. Obama's view, however, seems to be that if only government would do the right thing, people would turn to it more, and family and religion less, which also seems to be your argument. And I find that view troubling.
No, Obama's view, and my view, is that government has been failing people, and they've been turning to religion and family to compensate for the gap, and that's a problem, and the solution is to make government work better and stop failing people.

I guess technically since I'm saying that because people are over-relying on religion and family because government is failing them, that if we improve the government they will rely on religion and family less, but that's an oversimplification, since that over-reliance is a symptom of the real problem, which is the fact that government hasn't been doing its job.
Beetle, that last line "
Perhaps even more troubling is his suggestion that the government should serve the role of religion and family." is pretty manipulative and disingenuous.

Your entire back-and-forth with this last commenter is even more-so - it's perfectly clear what s/he means.
I thought it obvious what she means. But what she describes as a "technically" statement is actually quite fundamental to my discomfort.
Please. Look, it's like if some guy start buying firewood to replace gas heating because the price of gas is going up, and then the price of gas goes down so he starts using that again. What you're doing is raising the alarm that now gas is taking the place of firewood. The point is that firewood was taking the place of gas, and now gas is moving back to where it should be.
Yes, that's entirely clear. The idea of viewing religion, family, and government as commodities is what I find so troubling.
Alright, you clearly either don't know what you're talking about or are intentionally misinterpreting me, so I'll end the conversation there.
Post a Comment

. . .