Perfection Is The Answer
By Mitch Berg
Any state legislator that has ever bounced a check should be disqualified from budget debates.
Any solon that has ever gotten a speeding ticket should be disqualified from speaking about crime.
Any elected official that has gotten less than a “C” in a class, ever, should be barred from debate on education.
Absurd, right?
Not if you’re a kept leftyblogger, apparently.
Let’s back up a bit.
Gay marriage, to me, is not the most important issue on the public plate right now.
Oh, make no mistake – I think “marriage” should be a purely religious institution, and that the state’s only interest in a perfect world would be that of enforcing a civil contract. Hence, I think that civil unions, as a contractual entity, should be legal. For that matter, I think that any church or religious body that can theologically justify “marriage” between people of the same sex should be able to do it (although suffice to say that I’ll have an interesting time debating that bit of instatheology).
I believe this because, while I think there’s a legitimate case to be made for same-sex civil unions, there is none I can see for gay marriage.
But since I, myself, am divorced, apparently according to kept leftyblogger Andy Birkey, I should just shut up and let everyone who’s never held out an opinion about what marriage should be about.
In this piece, Birkey takes the crimes, found and alleged, of three Republican legislators (two in Minnesota, one national)…
…and says:
These “pro-family” failures demonstrate that we should be suspicious when politicians try to legislate rigid traditional standards on people’s private romantic lives, because chances are, they won’t be able to live up to the expectations they set for the rest of us.
Get that?
Out of millions of Republicans, and dozens of GOP legislators in this state, the failures of two people invalidate the entire case against same sex marriage?
Wow.
Since the Democrat majority leader got pulled over for Drunk Driving after the last session, the DFL should be ignored on public safety issues?
So since a number of prominent DFLers supported Kathleen Soliah, we should ignore the DFL on terrorism and crime issues?
Because of William Jefferson, Democrats should shut up about corruption?
Because Jeff Fecke has never admitted to cribbing AP quotes, we should ignore everything the Minnesota Monitor says?
(That last may be a bad example).
July 20th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Similar to a left-leaner friend of mine (a paralegal) who essentially says I have no opinion on abortion worth listening to because I am a man… and men should not be able to make laws regarding abortion.
She balked when I extrapolated that idea into the obvious next-step… only black guys can pass laws that effect blacks.
Maybe only illegal immigrants should pass laws regarding illegal immigration.
July 20th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
The (former) pastor of my Lutheran church told me that since Jesus never explicitly mentioned homosexuality gay “marriage” is justifiable. Now since I just celebrated the 25th anniversary of my marriage to a person of the opposite sex do I get a bonus qualification regarding opinion?
July 20th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
More irrationality from the left: the validity of an argument depends on who is making it.
July 20th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Kermit-
The usual counter to the argument of your former pastor is that when Christ gave explicit religious instruction it is recorded in the Gospels only when it contradicted with then existing religious law (hence the several red-letter passages in the NT that unequivocally condemn divorce).
The NT builds on the OT. You can’t just fill in the blanks with whatever you’d like.
July 20th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Terry, you can if you’re a Left-Leaner.
😉
July 20th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Excellent point, Terry. I’m going to have to think on that one.
July 20th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Excellent haiku
Reading it made me happy
And now I must sleep
🙂
July 20th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
In addition to Salvation Christ gave us exegisis.
July 21st, 2007 at 8:40 am
Thye have medicine for that now. It’s topical.
July 21st, 2007 at 9:28 am
Only Blogger Berg would take this:
“we should be suspicious”
and turn it into:
“”Any state legislator that has ever bounced a check should be disqualified from budget debates.
Any solon that has ever gotten a speeding ticket should be disqualified from speaking about crime.
Any elected official that has gotten less than a “C” in a class, ever, should be barred from debate on education.””
You are totally loosing it to make that reach! What happened to my Neighbor, and where are you hiding him. He has much more common sense than this.
Flash
July 21st, 2007 at 9:39 am
Birkey simply repackaged the ad hominem argument. Anytime anyone uses that approach, they are admitting that they don’t have a legitimate rebuttal to a position their opponent holds, so they seek to get the opponent forever declared out of bounds on the issue. (Are you listening, Doug?)
Mitch put up several examples, Badda mentioned two more good ones. Taking that whole approach to its logical conclusion, the Left that sling this logical fallacy cannot complain about any elected official unless they go get elected themselves. They cannot argue about health care unless they become a physician and open a clinic. They cannot claim OUR SCHOOLS ARE BURNING unless they themselves are willing to become a teacher. They cannot decry the plight of the poor unless they open and run a homeless shelter.
That’s why it is a fallacy: it will come back to bite you in the a$$.
July 21st, 2007 at 9:50 am
Paul, and the rest of you contextually challeneged.
Andy NEVER says anything about not allowing someone to speak out or legislate on issue for which they have inconsistencies. He merely says we should be “suspicious”. And unless you are part of that 20% that still will blindly follow the party like a lemming, you should ALWAYS be suspicious about whatever our elected officials are doing, especially when their actions in their personal lives are in direct contrast to what they say on the stump.
Jeesh . . this is a simply one for crying out loud!!
Flash
July 21st, 2007 at 10:07 am
“He merely says we should be “suspicious”. ”
Do you really think that Andy is just suspicious of the people he mentions?
No, he disdains them. Not for the indiscretions that he’s listed (he could easily compile a nonpartisan list). Not for their supposed hypocrisy (ditto). But because they have taken positions against gay marriage.
Also, he’s not just asking his readers to be suspicious, he’s openly advocating against their election to office. Why else would he just happen to mention
“Winona social studies teacher, DFLer Linda Feilsticker is running against Drazkowski.”
July 21st, 2007 at 11:33 am
As in many things, C.S.Lewis did it better, this is an example of “Bulverism”
http://www.barking-moonbat.com/God_in_the_Dock.html
To those who refuse to follow links, a Bulverism goes like this, “You say that because you are XXX” An argument doesn’t stand upon it’s own merits, it hinges on who is making it.
July 21st, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Flash said:
“Andy NEVER says anything about not allowing someone to speak out or legislate on issue for which they have inconsistencies.”
Maybe Andy didn’t intend to, but that’s the track his logic is traveling on. I simply named the destination that track leads, as the rest of us did.
“You should ALWAYS be suspicious about whatever our elected officials are doing, especially when their actions in their personal lives are in direct contrast to what they say on the stump.”
Notice which side it is that condemns hypocritical actions outright, and which looks the other way with fingers stuck in ears while chanting “LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA!”
July 23rd, 2007 at 7:40 am
But if a guy gets an expensive haircut he can’t talk about poverty, eh wingnuts? This blog is funnier than the comix.
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Actually, if a man gets a expensive haircut he probably should dial back on how much he empathies for the people in poverty. Or collects a ton of money for his part time job of giving speeches about poverty. Stuff like that.
July 23rd, 2007 at 6:45 pm
if a guy gets an expensive haircut he can’t talk about poverty
We never said he couldn’t talk about it.
We questioned his judgment on finances.
You do understand the difference?
July 26th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Mitch quotes:
and says: These ‘pro-family’ failures demonstrate that we should be suspicious when politicians try to legislate rigid traditional standards on people’s private romantic lives, because chances are, they won’t be able to live up to the expectations they set for the rest of us.
Then Mitch posts:
Get that?
Out of millions of Republicans, and dozens of GOP legislators in this state, the failures of two people invalidate the entire case against same sex marriage?
Wow.
and then
Paul Says:
July 23rd, 2007 at 6:45 pm
if a guy gets an expensive haircut he can’t talk about poverty
We never said he couldn’t talk about it.
We questioned his judgment on finances.
You do understand the difference?
Coldeye Says;
Funny one!
Mitch and Paul, come on you guys are pulling our leg with this, right? Its too obvious.
OK, maybe not for you – let me help you here. Carefully extract Birkeys statement, then Paul’s on the haircut judgement, remove all background, give them to someone you trust BUT do not tell them who said what. See how they compare them.
Paul, let me help you a little more. Take your statement above, go to Birkey’s post and find where he said “you couldn’t talk about it”
Mitch:
we should be suspicious = invalidate the entire case against ???
Lady Logician, where are you when these guys need you?