Go to THRAWN RICKLE
- Add a comment
- Go to THE SPIN STOPS HERE
What can I say, GoldenMean...
..."they" say a picture sometimes is worth a thousand or so words. My posts get heavy. I guess the smileys in my responses lighten things up a bit.
posted by
arGee
on November 16, 2003 at 8:56 AM
| link to this | reply
Good post, Argee.....
but what's up with the smiley cartoons all of a sudden??? Talk about out of character!!....
posted by
GoldenMean
on November 15, 2003 at 10:39 PM
| link to this | reply
Thanks, Inkling,...
...I expect to come and go, as time permits. (I responded to your comment on your blog.)
posted by
arGee
on November 13, 2003 at 2:44 PM
| link to this | reply
Argee
just popping in to say I'm glad you're back to blogging regularly, whether or not I agree with your opinions. And I replied to your photo comment on my blog, in case you didn't see that.
posted by
Inkling
on November 13, 2003 at 2:27 PM
| link to this | reply
While I appreciate your response, Itlmac...
...and acknowledge your intended irony at pointing out what you considered "spin" in my post about spin, I have to disagree that I misquoted Moore. I did not quote him at all. I simply paraphrased his position as accurately as possible, since I didn't have his exact words before me. It was very clear from the two interviews I heard within a half-hour of each other that Moore clearly "believes" he has been diciplined for his beliefs. This simply IS NOT so. I don't disagree that his beliefs are what brought on the situation in the first place, and I also don't disagree that most of his opponents don't particularly like his beliefs, but that doesn't change the simple point that Moore defied a Federal Court order. THAT is why he was fired, NOT his beliefs. Furthermore, I never stated nor implied that Moore's beliefs should be determining for holding his position. This is what HE said was happening. I said that he was fired NOT because of his beliefs, but because of his BEHAVIOR.
I acknowledge that there is a clear inconsistency in invoking God in one context and prohibiting that same action in another, but the proper venue for addressing this inconsistency is within the courts and the legislature, NOT the streets. In going to the streets, Moore made himself ineligible for the high position he formerly held. I emphasize again, it was Moore's illegal BEHAVIOR, not his religious beliefs that got him in trouble.
posted by
arGee
on November 13, 2003 at 2:16 PM
| link to this | reply
Oops, Editormum...
...it looks as if I blew it by flaunting my knowledge while flouting grammar. Thanks for pointing this out!
posted by
arGee
on November 13, 2003 at 2:11 PM
| link to this | reply
An interesting post.
Justice Moore has lost my support as well, though not, I think, for quite the same reasons as you give. I'm not sure that I am able, yet, to clearly communicate my thinking on this case, so I will forbear to comment further at this time, other than to say I agree with much of what you have said so clearly in your post.
Oh, and please check out this post...I think you will find it interesting.
posted by
editormum
on November 13, 2003 at 1:43 PM
| link to this | reply
Argee, You Have...
...a PhD, but that won't guarantee sense and open-mindedness any more than law school will.
Know what I mean?
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on November 13, 2003 at 1:42 PM
| link to this | reply
The word INVOKE
Just a quick thought...What Justice Moore said was "acknowledge God" not "invoke God". When we quote a person in order to prove our point, it is extremely important to use the actual words and not the ones which help us make our point. While I can give your opinion credence in the respect of whether or not he followed the law, you've mis-stated the position of Justice Moore and twisted his intended position a bit. His belief or disbelief in God, shouldn't be the deciding factor as to whether or not he can fill his position successfully. As long as the governing bodies and documents of our country include the "acknowledging" of God on an every-day basis, then no court has the legal right to hold him in rebuke for the same practice. In any case, you didn't offer Moore's position accurately, and I wanted to make a comment about that specifically. I think you might define that behavior as "Spin", but then again...maybe not.
posted by
superflymom119
on November 13, 2003 at 1:24 PM
| link to this | reply
That was my first thought, Gomedome...
...but then I considered that this guy went through Law School, and got elected to his former high position. Surely he can think reasonably logically? I hope...
posted by
arGee
on November 13, 2003 at 1:22 PM
| link to this | reply
The theory of seeking higher political office probably is the most likely.
It would look good on a candidates resume to be one that stands up for what one believes in regardless of the consequences. It would especially play well to others of his own faith to capture their votes. If this is his motive I would have to agree that it is shameless pandering to the voters for political gain but what could be as equally disconcerting is if he truely believes what he is saying.
posted by
gomedome
on November 13, 2003 at 1:17 PM
| link to this | reply