Kathianne
07-10-2007, 11:49 PM
This analogy is so wrong, it's right! ;) There are links at site for the more obscure features. This is one of my fav blogs, but it's often so odd:
http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=9428
July 9, 2007
compare and contrast
Al Gore, at Live Earth, on the topic of global warming advocacy: “We are in a transition time in history when the only way we can get to where we need to be is by starting from where we are.”
— Or, to put it in terms that eschew pseudo-profundity for clarity, “the way to fight global warming is to get serious about fighting global warming.”
Now, here’s John Roberts for the majority in the recent SCOTUS ruling that struck down race-based policies in Seattle and Louisville: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
These sentiments seem remarkably similar to me — though one is based on dubious science (it’s no accident that “global warming” is being transitioned into “climate change”), while the other is based on a premise (discrimination based on race) that nearly all parties agree on — and yet the Roberts’ statement has drawn jeers and opprobrium from the left, while Gore’s comments have gone largely unremarked upon.
Had John Roberts perhaps subcontracted out the majority decision to Madonna — one can almost envision her jumping around in a gossamer hooded cape, wireless headset, and metallic nipple cones, agitating for a society in which people are judged on the content of their character and not the color of their skin — Mike Littwin might today be more open to the idea of a colorblind Constitution.
Plus, some people really do like those metallic nipple cones. So, you know — bonus!
Posted by Jeff G
http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=9428
July 9, 2007
compare and contrast
Al Gore, at Live Earth, on the topic of global warming advocacy: “We are in a transition time in history when the only way we can get to where we need to be is by starting from where we are.”
— Or, to put it in terms that eschew pseudo-profundity for clarity, “the way to fight global warming is to get serious about fighting global warming.”
Now, here’s John Roberts for the majority in the recent SCOTUS ruling that struck down race-based policies in Seattle and Louisville: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
These sentiments seem remarkably similar to me — though one is based on dubious science (it’s no accident that “global warming” is being transitioned into “climate change”), while the other is based on a premise (discrimination based on race) that nearly all parties agree on — and yet the Roberts’ statement has drawn jeers and opprobrium from the left, while Gore’s comments have gone largely unremarked upon.
Had John Roberts perhaps subcontracted out the majority decision to Madonna — one can almost envision her jumping around in a gossamer hooded cape, wireless headset, and metallic nipple cones, agitating for a society in which people are judged on the content of their character and not the color of their skin — Mike Littwin might today be more open to the idea of a colorblind Constitution.
Plus, some people really do like those metallic nipple cones. So, you know — bonus!
Posted by Jeff G