Sunday, May 13, 2007

Weasel

I am personally against drinking and driving, but I believe everyone has a right to choose to drink and drive.

I am personally against cheating on my income taxes, but I believe everyone has a right to choose to cheat on their own income taxes.

I am personally against beating my wife, but I believe everyone has a right to beat their own wife.

I am personally against armed robbery, but I believe everyone has a right to choose to use a firearm in a robbery.

I am personally against slavery, but I believe everyone has a right to choose to own slaves.

I am personally against abortion, but I believe everyone has a right to choose to have an abortion.

I’m not smart enough to know if Mayor Giuliani’s political position on abortion is clever enough for him to win the Republican nomination or the general election, but I do know a weasel when I hear one.

7 comments:

Buz said...

David,

The one thing that you neglected to mention with each of those choices comes some consequences, either to the person making the choice, or to others around them.
(Probably on purpose.)

"I am personally against beating my wife, but I believe everyone has a right to beat their own wife."

The person beating their wife may not have any consequences ... unless said wife decides she has had enough some night when the person comes home drunk, and she beats him to death with a fire-place tool.

There are some obvious consequences, and some less obvious. In the case of slavery, for instance. The obvious consequence was that some people were treated as property, and were denied freedom. The less obvious one was that, in order to justify owning slaves in a country where all men are created equal, the only "logical" thing one can do is to deny that some men are not men. Suddenly you are in a society where, as Orwell put it, "All animals are equal, some animals are more equal than others". The only way to right such a wrong is with great shedding of blood.

"I am personally against abortion, but I believe that everyone has a right to choose to have an abortion." Again, the only way to justify such a statement in a country where the murder of another person is prohibited, is to say that some persons are not really persons. Which is what has been done. It would be more honest to admit that it is OK to kill some people for no reason whatsoever. But that would horrify some of the people who like the venier of being egalitarian.

It's OK. Our children know the truth, and that is why they slaughter each other in schools and on the streets. They know that life is cheap, and no one really cares, unless you kill someone important, like a politician or a Hollywood personality. Keep away from them, and you can shoot as many people as you like ... 'cause after all, they're not really people.

"I am personally against the senseless slaughter of innocent children, but I believe that everyone should have the right to choose to slaughter innocent children."

Buz

(Free Paris Hilton!)

Rick and Gary said...

Boy, I would love to see a Giuliani-Clinton race. Those are both really tough characters.

I wish we could de-Federalize the social issues and choose a President based on fiscal discipline and foreign-policy acumen.

David M. Smith said...

“I wish we could de-Federalize the social issues and choose a President based on fiscal discipline and foreign-policy acumen.”

Ah, you mean follow the Constitution; it will never happen. : - )

Buz said...

Actually, I wish we could divorce both from the election ... you can always appoint wise counselors (I think that is why the president has a cabinet), what we need is some one with the "c" word (character). (As Starkist used to say to Charlie, "someone that HAS character, not someone who IS a character.")

Buz

(Free Paris Hilton!)

Hammertime said...

David,
I actually in this case do not think that Rudy G. is being as weasel-like as he is being portrayed by many.

Rudy is a lawyer and prosecutor. He believes in the rule of law, and that the law should be enforced. He believes that the Constitution is a just document, and that the same document gives the SCOTUS the right to interpret it.

It is with such a value set that he can honestly say that he does not favor abortion, but that he supports the right to it - a legally defined right to it. That's why he also can state that it is OK if the court overturns it, because then the Constitution would still be the arbiter of right and wrong.

Rudy is essentially an agnostic. For those who do not hold to the moral laws of a religion, Rudy's view is completely intellectually honest. He accepts the Constitution as right, and recognizes its current interpretation as permitting, not requiring abortion. Hence, he can support the right while denying he would ever support it in his personal life.

David M. Smith said...

Hi Hammer,

Your explanation of Mayor Giuliani’s position sounds more logical, and less like a weasel, although still wrong.

However, I have never heard Mayor Giuliani or his representatives make such a case. Mayor Giuliani has repeatedly said he believes in a woman’s right to choose; not he believes in enforcing the court precedent.

The reports were that his advisors concocted this election strategy to keep him from appearing to flip-flop and to appeal to more moderate Republicans.

Your comment is so well written, you might consider a career change to political spokesperson; but I hope you don’t. : - )

Buz said...

So, might I interpret that as, "if the Supreme Court decided that it was constitutional to kill everyone of Irish descent" that Mr. G. would go along with it ... because it is the decision of those making the law? Or is there perhaps some things so heinous that he would have to stop and say, "NO, that's wrong," and slaughtering innocent babies for convenience sake and for profit, just doesn't clear that moral hurdle for him?

Buz