Comments Posted By DeputyHeadmistress
Displaying 1 To 8 Of 8 Comments

WHOSE FREEDOM? WHAT IS SPEECH?

I agree with Rick. I don't think this guy should be charged with a 'hate crime.' But then, I think hate crimes are for the thought police, not a free society.

I don't agree so much with several commentors. A custody case over a minor child is hardly in the same category as free speech issues involving adults.

Rachel may well have gotten a raw deal, but we're relying on her testimony and that of her friends to make that judgment- and by their nature, custody issues are loaded with emotional baggage (they can't help but be, it's our KIDS we are talking about).
I'm also not impressed with her decision to publicize her kid's name and situation on the internet, but oh, well.

I remember seeing another custody case over religion years ago- Donohue or Oprah. One parent Catholic, one Jewish, they divorced, and one parent wanted the other one not to be allowed to discuss their religion with or in front of the child, and the judge did rule in favor of that request. I forget why, and it may or may not have been a stupid ruling- but the point is you don't really have freedom of speech with minor children in custody cases. Like it or not, it's a hairier situation. My friend may be free to say what she likes about her ex husband's soul to me, but a judge can rule that she can't say those things to her kids. So this isn't the same thing at all as an adult student in a public university surrounded by other adults putting a book in the toilet.

As for the difference between the Koran and other religions and the treatment of their icons- poppycock. The Catholics view the Eucharist as something every bit as holy (holier even) as the Koran, yet there was a sit com episode (Committed) all around misusing it- it was very offensive to Catholics (and I'm not one). The Anchoress blogged about it. People objected, but nobody took them to court. They are not charged with a hate crime, even though you know it wasn't love for their Catholic acquaintances that prompted such a story line.

I also don't agree that it's oppressive for Muslim cab drivers to refuse to carry passengers with alcohol. They are not imposing their morality on non muslims because you don't have to take their cab. You can walk, take a bus, take a subway, get your own car, or dump the booze if you like. Those who insist that a Muslim transport them in violation of his conscience are the ones imposing their morality on others. But then I believe in freedom of association as well as freedom to do business with whom you want (or not do business with whom you don't want).

I'm not interested in living in Dhimmitude, but that doesn't mean I want to dhimmify Muslims, either.

Comment Posted By DeputyHeadmistress On 5.08.2007 @ 12:05

LOUDER PLEASE...THE CRICKETS ARE CHIRPING

Talkleft.com- that blogger condemned the attacks and repudiated the vile and insane woman who made them. She did it with grace and without any backtracking.

Joe, I have criticized Anne Coulter before, but I don't recall her ever making death threats and sexually suggested remarks about a child as this Deborah person did. Do you? Where?
The child is two years old, and this Deborah person talked about french kissing him and making sure there was lots of saliva. I want to vomit on my keyboard even repeating that. I cannot imagine how I would feel if somebody actually came to my blog, picked a fight, and then responded by a remark like that about one of my children.

It's completely out of bounds, and that woman needs some serious therapy and help. That isn't a political issue, it's a mental health issue. Acting like a crazy person didn't just act like a crazy person does not help them. It's cruel.

And btw, that apology and alleged 'loss' of a job? She lied. Shortly afterward she started accusing Jeff of making up some of the remarks that she made and claiming that the DOS attack was engineered by him to hide and alter the evidence. She now says that she was going to resign anyway, and she hasn't been in Arizona for a while. She's posting from Eugene Oregon, where she'd rather live. I just hope they have the right sort of hospital care for her, because I think she's a danger to children.
I seriously cannot imagine what sort of sewage is in her head that she could even *think* of the things she said about Jeff's baby, or anybody's baby. Normal humans do not juxtapose those sorts of images.
She also told Jeff that he wasn't even human to her, and since she cannot even bring herself to refer to the innocent child as anything kinder than 'pathetic progeny' it's obvious she has dehumanized an inoffensive, innocent toddler just because of his father's politics. That's not okay, and I have no respect for anybody who cannot simply acknowledge that without making it equivilant to adults who rag on OTHER ADULTS, however obnoxiously.

Comment Posted By DeputyHeadmistress On 8.07.2006 @ 22:00

THE ANTI-MODERNISTS

He makes a convenient straw man for secularists, and that’s it.

Exactly. I am a conservative Christian, and I can't ever remember hearing any of my friends, relations, neighbors, or acquaintances bring him up in the last ten years- except one, and he's an atheist who thought he was making a significant point.
The only other time I hear anything about him is when the media reports on some latest lunacy.

As a point of fact, had he lived in certain OT times he would have been executed a few years back for false prophecies in the Name of G-d. They took truth telling a lot more seriously. The punishment certainly seems harsh, but you have to admit, if the consequences for carelessly claiming to speak for God were more severe, more people would refrain from speaking their own wishful thinking as the Voice of God.

Comment Posted By Deputyheadmistress On 10.01.2006 @ 12:07

IT'S MY BLOG SO F*** YOU AND THE MOTHERF***IN' HORSE YOU RODE IN ON

Rick, I don't think Raven was upset with you, I think Raven is upset with me (I don't want to be too self-centered, but I am the one who said swearing was the result of a limited mind).
Raven's right- I grossly overstated the case, and I apologize, and I wasn't even accurate, because certainly not everybody who swears is a dunce.
I do not believe, though, that any human being who isn't disabled truly cannot help it. Habits can be broken. Sometimes it hurts a lot to try (and I have several very bad habits of my own that I have yet to cure, but I figure that's because my will is weak, not because it is humanly impossible). Since you say you can guard your language when it is necessary, obviously it is something you could control if it was a priority, just as I could control my bad habits if they were a high enough priority for me. It might be terribly difficult and the equivilant of climbing Mt. Everest in exercising self discipline, but it *could* be done.

Raven, it also seems to me that there are at least two internal contradicitions in this statement:

"I consider my “language” to be an extension of who I am…and others who judge me based upon my use of words are hollow and high and mighty. I respect almost everyone, no matter how they speak/write/think. I don’t respect those who judge others without first getting to know them."

If your language is an extension of who you are, and I agree that it generally is, how is it 'hollow and high and mighty' to judge you based upon your use of words? You said yourself it is an extension of yourself.
When you say you do not respect those who judge others without first getting to know them, have you yourself really gotten to know those you've decided you do not respect?

Full disclosure: I have a relative who will not guard his language under any circumstances, not around our Christian parents, not around my young children, not around young children who might be sitting near him on the bus because he says he doesn't believe in self-censorship. To me this translates as him not believing in self-control. And I am just a little bit tired of living in a world of people too much like this relative, who not only think nothing of using language once reserved for thugs or for private settings in front of my kids, but who defend it. Yeah, I'm cranky on the subject. But I've rarely (read, never) read or heard any swearing that truly enhanced a point as much as the swearer thought it did.

Comment Posted By DeputyHeadmistress On 23.09.2005 @ 10:17

Hate to disagree with such a normally brilliant blogger but....
There's no reason for it to be an outmoded concept to have children "learn, memorize, and recite classic verse." My kids have been doing so for years, as do many homeschoolers.

Taylor has few equals if we're talking quantity instead of quality. She can string them together. what she can't do is substitute an astute vocabulary and thoughtful ideas for the steam.

Once upon a time it was widely understood that cursing was the resort of the ill educated, illiterate classes who had limited intellectual resources.

Some people still understand that.

Where I agree with you:
Pretty much everything you said about poetry.

It's still Taylor's blog and she can and should say what she wants. I've read it three times because somebody I liked linked to it, but that's enough for me. She can write what she wants coz it is her blog, and I shall not be reading it because these are my eyes and this is my brain and I don't want that language in it. Both of us are happier that way.

Comment Posted By DeputyHeadmistress On 21.09.2005 @ 18:17

ANDERSON COOPER PITCHES: SHEEHAN HITS HOMERUN

Here's my Sheehan theory, worth what you pay for it.

I think she's angry with her dead son. Really. Anger, even rage, directed at the dearly departed is one of the acknowledged reactions to the death of a loved one. Survivors sometimes find themselves overcome with _anger_ at the loved one for abandoning them. This could be especially true when the loved one has made choices that contributed to his death (enlisting in the military, joining the police force, or making less noble choices).

Most people recognize this, feel guilty and try to sqelch it, or acknowledge it's a normal part of grieving and look forward to the end of that stage.
Some people go off the deep end, and in Cindy Sheehan's case, do so with a lot of help from their 'friends.'

Look at the way she talks about her son- he died at 24 years old, a fully grown up, adult human being, and she says she'd have 'taken him to Canada?' For some time now when I've heard her talking about him I've been struck by how... belittling she sounds. Like she's talking about a not very bright two year old. Somebody she loved but did not like and was impatient with. And last night it occurred to me she sounds like she's mad at her son but is displacing all that fury by redirecting it to figures her 'friends' encourage her to resent- it's more comfortable to be angry at the President than your dead son, so that's what she tells herself is happening. But she's mad at her son for re-enlisting.
This is self destructive, and she needs help. It's a sad thing to watch.

Comment Posted By DeputyHeadmistress On 18.08.2005 @ 10:09

BLOOD IS THICKER THAN POLITICS

Incidentally, I thought your brother handled himself well on Hugh Hewitt, except for the part where he overeacted to the 'big head, small resume' point- very mistakenly taking that as a personal crack, when Hugh was obviously making a generalization, not a personal attack.
I thought he was mistaken about a couple things- but then, if I didn't, I wouldn't be at my end of the political spectrum. Good for you, again, for refusing to get in on public bashing of your brother.

Comment Posted By DeputyHeadmistress On 19.05.2005 @ 12:34

Good for you!

Comment Posted By DeputyHeadmistress On 18.05.2005 @ 22:25


 


 


Pages (1) : [1]


«« Back To Stats Page