Conferring Most Favored Cannibal Status

June 20, 2008 § 24 Comments

Meanwhile, via email: I don’t know about you, but “maybe we won’t have to eat children after all, there might be other good sources of meat” doesn’t really do it for me.

(HT to the reader for the metaphor, as well).

You’ve gotta love it that McCain has a “director of conservative outreach”.

Tagged:

§ 24 Responses to Conferring Most Favored Cannibal Status

  • brandon field says:

    <>You’ve gotta love it that McCain has a “director of conservative outreach”. <>Only if, as a conservative, you consider yourself somehow above or better than the lions and circuses that we call our political arena.

  • zippy says:

    I suppose the irony resides in the fact that McCain is supposed to be the ‘conservative’ candidate. It is like having a Director of Parish Outreach to Poor Saps Who Actually Think Catholicism is True.

  • Anonymous says:

    <>John McCain’s campaign may be signaling that, in light of the many advances that have been made in these “alternative sources,” he may be willing to take a second look at his earlier opposition to the Bush approach.<>Zippy,While a <>possibly considering<> escr funding may, in fact, be regrettable; keep in mind, it is still just that — a consideration.It doesn’t even rise to the level of the positively evil act of Obama’s declared presidential signing of the FOCA.

  • Lydia McGrew says:

    Actually, McCain has been an overt supporter of federal funding for ESCR all along and has bucked his own party on this issue. What this story is saying is that _maybe_ he might change his mind on the funding issue if he decides it isn’t “necessary.”

  • Anonymous says:

    Lydia,While we should always frown on the “politically-expedient” recourse that politicians tend to fall back on time and again when it proves advantageous to them; however, should such recourse possibly mean the fulfillment of a potentially good act, that should be regarded as a plus in spite of the fact that (although it may very well leave a bad taste in our mouths) they may only be doing so for political gain.It reminds me of how certain politicians tend to devote charitable efforts to helping certain people in need — yes, conspicuously, they might be doing so for political gain but in the end, those people in need are, at the very least, being helped.

  • Scott says:

    Bully for McCain for being politically expediant, but that is neither here nor there. ESCR is non-negotiable. Maybe-I’ll-change-my-mind-someday may well be cause for hope that he is not forfeiting the game, but it’s a punt in the 4th quarter.

  • Lydia McGrew says:

    First, McCain is being fairly coy. He doesn’t even yet feel like going so far as to say that he now _opposes_ federal funding for ESCR, even though, from his own perspective, he should realize that scientifically there is no point to it. But he can’t even bring himself to say anything other than that his “mind is open” and all that jazz. Pretty thin gruel and hardly a recantation of his earlier position, politically expedient or not.Second, the blatant failure to change his moral commitments or in any sense to repent of his earlier position, or even to pretend to, makes the whole thing worth nothing but a shrug to me. He’s still the same person. Romney may have been lying, deceiving himself, or exaggerating about his change of heart about abortion, but at least he claimed to have had a real change of heart. McCain doesn’t say that. Should I laud him for his honesty about his continued commitment to cannibalism if “necessary,” or should I just write him off? Come to think of it, either way, I should write him off. I’m not interested in that sort of “outreach.”

  • Anonymous says:

    “…Maybe-I’ll-change-my-mind-someday may well be cause for hope that he is not forfeiting the game, but it’s a punt in the 4th quarter.”As that might very well be the case, it’ll become all but futile in the coming months.The inevitable darkness that is to come has already manifested itself in this omen:< HREF="http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465" REL="nofollow">Barack’s Bounce: The latest NEWSWEEK Poll shows the Democrat with a 15-point lead over McCain<>If you think the Pro-Life Movement is suffering now, just wait until the FOCA has been signed by Obama in his highly anticipated capacity as President of the United States.I hardly think that the Movement will ever recover thereafter; it’ll be dealt a deadly and, very likely, final blow.

  • brandon field says:

    <>I suppose the irony resides in the fact that McCain is supposed to be the ‘conservative’ candidate.<>Right. And it’s only ironic if you believe that the ‘conservative’ monkier represents something more principled than the rest of the political arena.

  • brandon field says:

    <>I hardly think that the Movement will ever recover thereafter; it’ll be dealt a deadly and, very likely, final blow.<>On the other hand, you can only say something like this if you believe that the Pro-Life Movement is nothing more than one part of our political arena. <>Sed contra<>, the pro-life movement — or at least the moral opposition to the culture of death that permeates our culture — is not a political movement, but rather an expression of the dignity of human life. No one person or one piece of legislation will be able to effectively counter the dignity of human life.The biggest problem, in my opinion, with the US pro-life movement is people like you who reduce it to a simple political ploy.

  • Anonymous says:

    Brendon Field:<>The biggest problem, in my opinion, with the US pro-life movement is people like you who reduce it to a simple political ploy.<>I’m sorry, but it seems I might have missed something here —Just how did I reduce something as sacred to me as the Pro-Life movement to a mere “political ploy”?Moreover, just how do you justify your calumny against me or is it that you’re normally given to such uncharitable responses and reduce Christianity to a mere clubhouse for the arrogant few?

  • zippy says:

    <>And it’s only ironic if you believe that the ‘conservative’ monkier represents something more principled than the rest of the political arena.<>Touche’. (Though I still think there may be at least semantic irony in claiming the title of Chief Neech while having a Director of Outreach to Neeches.)

  • Lydia McGrew says:

    Exactly. The “director of conservative outreach” thing amounts to an admission that McCain isn’t really conservative, and also tipping of the hand that he’s looking to find out what he can tell conservatives–whether true or false–that will get their vote. It’s a kind of displayed cynicism.I don’t watch television channels, so perhaps this kind of open manipulation is becoming so common that it doesn’t bother people anymore. But from the Republican candidate to conservatives it is particularly bitter.Oh, and don’t forget that McCain has spent his entire career thumbing his nose at conservatives. Any conservative who follows politics at all knows this. It’s what McCain is about and has been as long as I can remember. And he thinks this can be repaired by having a “director of conservative outreach” in June of election year?

  • zippy says:

    On the subject of the enjoyment of (what I think was) a typo, I like the idea that our political labels are now ‘monkiers’. Lots of interpretive possibilities there.

  • brandon field says:

    Dear Anonymous,<>Just how did I reduce something as sacred to me as the Pro-Life movement to a mere “political ploy”?<>By implying that the passing of a piece of legislation or election of a single person can deal it a “deadly and, very likely, final blow”. Explain to me you can believe the entire movement will come to an end with the election of Obama, unless you view the pro-life movement strictly within the political realm. You certainly did not convince me that you believe the pro-life movement to reflect the sanctity of human life, and you still fail to convince me of that by implying that you believe the movement itself to be sacred, rather than the life that the movement should be protecting. Furthermore, since you post under a non-unique pseudonym, you give me no opportunity to relate any previous comments that you might have made to the issues at hand.<>or is it that you’re normally given to such uncharitable responses and reduce Christianity to a mere clubhouse for the arrogant few?<>You can form your own conclusions, if you’re so inclined. I post exclusively under my given name (which has an ‘a’), and I have been posting in Zippy’s comment boxes for some time now.

  • brandon field says:

    <>I like the idea that our political labels are now ‘monkiers’.<>Ha and oops! Would that be a felix typo?

  • Anonymouse says:

    <> it’s only ironic if you believe that the ‘conservative’ monkier represents something more principled than the rest of the political arena. <> Why would we expect that? I mean, I hope and pray that conservatives would be principled, but knowing human nature, it would be odd to expect it. There are non-principled reasons to be conservative, and I would expect at least a large share of conservatives would be so out of those non-principled reasons. Just as, on the other side of the coin, there are principled reasons to be liberal, but I would expect many liberals to be so out of non-principled reasons. It so happens that it ALSO takes, for being a principled liberal, a failure to properly order and prioritize various principles, so it also takes an error of intellect as well as will to be a principled liberal.

  • brandon field says:

    Some more thoughts, after having a night’s rest:First, yes, Anonymous, my reply to you <>was<> uncharitable. I apologize. However, your characterization of the pro-life movement as something that could be dealt a “deadly blow” by the election of a single pro-choice president is what I consider hyperbolic rhetoric that is used to elect luke-warm so-called-moral-conservatives who have no interest in the sanctity of human live beyond what it does for their poll results. In my opinion, if the political aspect to the pro-life movement were to disappear completely, the overall movement would be able to gain more credibility and have more success in the long run. Especially the people that use the “except in the cases of rape and incest” line that completely undermines the entire concept. Those so called supporters could vanish without many tears on my part.So, I guess you hit one of my nerves; which is not a justification for my uncharitable response but that was the reason for it.

  • William Luse says:

    “He has said that this is a very difficult decision for him…”Which makes the decision not to vote for him less difficult, though my mind is not made up.

  • Fun with Nametags says:

    Just out of curiosity: If a person who used to be cannibal says “I no longer eat people anymore – it gives me heartburn, and it just is not worth it.” Is he still a cannibal? If a person who used to be a cannibal says: “I now believe that eating people can be bad for your health. I am considering asking the surgeon general to issue a warning that eating a person may be dangerous to your health.” Is he still a cannibal?

  • LargeBill says:

    I understand that McCain has his various issues of disagreement with conservatives, but having or not having a director of conservative outreach means nothing. I bet he has a director of veteran outreach or something similar. Does that mean he can’t relate to veterans? No. Just means campaigns are bureaucracies.

  • William Luse says:

    The answer to funwithnametags is “yes.”

  • Anonymous says:

    Brandon Field,Look, I tire of your uncharitable rhetoric, so let me just say this bit and I’ll move on —Do you really think preaching about how wrong it is to kill Jews in WWII Germany would have been effective?In my view, the fact of the matter is that preaching about how wrong it is to kill babies in the womb is not enough to halt the holocaust, for goodness sakes! You need to affect changes at the governmental level!Personally, if a candidate were to endorse the Pro-Life agenda; even if it were for political means, so long as it’ll mean that the holocaust of murdering babies will be terminated once and for all — yes, I’d vote for that person!That was my point in my previous comments.And, yes, to me, the presidential signing of the FOCA is a terrible event that foreshadows not only a continuation of the holocaust, but a full embrace of it!So, you can take your self-important ego and your arrogant sense of self-righteousness out of here; it doesn’t do much where the ongoing holocausts is concerned because it rather have such holocausts continue than have it end ultimately at the governmental level!(Zippy, apologies.)

  • brandon field says:

    Anonymous,<>In my view, the fact of the matter is that preaching about how wrong it is to kill babies in the womb is not enough to halt the holocaust, for goodness sakes! You need to affect changes at the governmental level!<>Then I won’t tire you with any of my uncharitable preaching, except to point out that this is the point on which we disagree.Good luck on your side of things. We are fighting on the same side of the battle, even if we don’t agree with the means employed by the other.<>So, you can take your self-important ego and your arrogant sense of self-righteousness out of here; <>I remain a commenter here at Zippy’s pleasure; if he requests that I refrain from future posts, then I most certainly will.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Conferring Most Favored Cannibal Status at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: