Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Grassley Loses His Head

"The price you pay for using 'liberal' as a negative is: I collect your fucking head." - Pete Bogs

During Sammy Alito’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings today Iowa Republican Senator Charles Grassley used his Q&A time to bash liberals.

In his introductory statements Grassley spoke of current ethics complaints against Alito as “absurd” allegations by “left-wing liberal interest groups.”

One can draw by inference that Grassley thinks DeLay and Abramoff are swell guys getting a bum rap.

Grassley was referring to an issue, brought up earlier in the hearings by Senator Ted Kennedy, that years ago during confirmation hearings for a circuit court appointment Alito told the US Senate Judiciary Committee – the very body he appears before today – he would recuse himself from cases in which he had some kind of conflict of interest.

Alito’s words during the earlier hearings:

"I do not believe that conflicts of interest relating to my financial interests are likely to arise. I would, however, disqualify myself from any cases involving the Vanguard companies, the brokerage firm of Smith Barney, or the First Federal Savings Loan of Rochester, New York."

Alito later heard a case regarding Vanguard, a company with which he holds mutual funds. Today he claimed that a dozen years between his statement and the case made him forget what he said.

Does Grassley not care about the facts? And does he not have a dictionary, so he can look up what “liberal” means?

Grassley has lost his head.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/10/AR2006011000781.html

7 comments:

Miranda said...

I've posted a response to your comment on Jenee's blog on mine.
I wanted to make sure you had
the opportunity to defend yourself.

Pete Bogs said...

thanks for the heads up... I'll post my response on your blog and mine...

Pete Bogs said...

the author responds...

Reason is actually the main distinction between us and most other animals; we do pretty much the same stuff, apart from that.

Back when you were four, Martin Scorsese put out the movie I mentioned, and it was immediately criticized by the religious right. The objections they had, that I can still remember, were that Jesus (who, I was taught as a youngster, was naked on the cross) was shown down to his pubic hair. My use of those words was a paraphrasing of those critics’ words.

(If having pubic hair is what constitutes being human, some of my past relationships were only part human!)

They also objected to Jesus being portrayed as lusting after women. But I was taught that God sent His son to earth to save the souls of humanity. That son was Jesus, who became flesh, i.e. a man. So a man lusting after a woman? Yeah, happens every day. May well have happened to Jesus, too.

My overall point about Mary and Jesus is that, since some revere them so much, they will not allow them to be shown with human qualities – even in a satirical manner. To me, at least in the former case, that amounts to idol worship, which I recall being considered a sin.

I love South Park, but even I thought that episode was a bit gratuitous and gross for my taste. But I believe in their right to tackle potentially offensive subjects, and the right of the general public not to watch the show. Yep, that’s a standard liberal argument, and I stand by it.

I don’t know where the fecal references came from, but I am a fan of Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog. You seem to share his tendency to mention that function.

Thanks for the heads up. Cheers!

Miranda said...

Thanks for your response. You're more reasonable than your comment on Jenee's page lead me to believe and I find that I agree with you more than I disagree.

I do want to say a couple of things about this part of your comment, however.

My overall point about Mary and Jesus is that, since some revere them so much, they will not allow them to be shown with human qualities – even in a satirical manner. To me, at least in the former case, that amounts to idol worship, which I recall being considered a sin.

If Jesus is God, worshipping him
can't really be idol worship. Nor do I think it can rightly be said that just because people object to certain intimate details of a woman's life being shown that they worship her. I certainly wouldn't
want anyone to make a movie of my
life that attempted to make me seem "human" by showing me going through that particular cycle. If a movie can't show that someone's human without reducing them to that, those making it aren't very talented. And, as we've established, the presence or lack thereof of certain sorts of hair, doesn't really make someone human, so showing it isn't really necessary. I suspect that the reason it was shown was to shock people - but I may be wrong. I'd have to see the movie to know for sure.

One could argue that Jesus lusted after women, I suppose. The bible does say that he suffered the same temptations most of us do. But if lust itself is a sin, and Jesus was sinless, then he couldn't have lusted. Those who objected probably
believe he didn't lust. As do I, but it's arguable.

I mention the fecal matter to make a point. There are a lot of unpleasant traits that might "make us human," that fact doesn't make them any less offensive or unpleasant.

I don't object to you having an opinion that's different than mine.
I DO object to the fact that you
act like the objections of others aren't understandable.

Thanks again for taking the time to respond!

Pete Bogs said...

My overall point about Mary and Jesus is that, since some revere them so much, they will not allow them to be shown with human qualities – even in a satirical manner. To me, at least in the former case, that amounts to idol worship, which I recall being considered a sin.

by "the former" I was referring to Mary... Jesus is the central figure of Christianity, so worshipping him couldn't be idolatry... but Catholicism puts an inordinate (and not biblically supported) amount of emphasis on Mary... there's a church here in Florida called Mary Queen Of The Universe Shrine... talk about overkill! she's obviously important, but there is a cult-like devotion to Mary out there... and since Catholics were the main complainants about the show, I was addressing their objections...

Miranda said...

Some Catholics do put too much emphasis on Mary (and sometimes Veronica), but certainly not all of them. I'm not sure whether or not the Catholics who objected to the show were that sort. They certainly weren't the only ones offended. Most traditional Christians and Muslims would probably find something of that sort offensive. And with good reason - it is.

Pete Bogs said...

why would traditional Catholics be watching South Park to begin with? probably not a smart choice... I know there are hunting shows on sports channels, and I think they're sick; I don't watch them! there's also a very popular reality show where people degrade themselves for money by eating live bugs... that's really sick... again, I don't watch it...