Seriously: “Send in the Clowns” on Queenzbop playlist
My kids love those Kidzbop music CDs. I hope the Queen of Englad is enjoying the Queenzbop playlist our cheesy president chose for her iPod.
JWF points out that the most fitting tune ever is on the playlist:
The Age of Obama: It’s the April Fool’s Day that never ends.
Posted in: Barack Obama
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Obama-rama in Europe! The President who keeps on giving - 12 teleprompters « Jim Blazsik
- Blog @ MoreWhat.com
- Wasted Time & Money: Obama’s Media Team Screw Up TV News Coverage of UK G20 « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Buckingham Palace: Obama Heats up the Charm to Undo His Previous Rudeness to UK Prime Minister: Update: Obama Gift Gaffe « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- North Korea has deployed a fleet of MiG-23 fighter jets along the east coast where it is gearing up to launch a rocket « Goodtimepolitics
- Frank Gehry Prepares to Drop Shiny Metal Turd on Washington Mall « Teh Resistance Blog
- Jules Crittenden » God Save The Queen!
- iQueen « Jane Q. Republican
- The Obama’s Royal Visit; Do they even like the British? « Northern Thoughts And Reflections
- Boston Globe slobbers all over Barack Obama « Danishova
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Barack Obama
Big Government
» BREAKING: San Diego ACORN Document Dump Scandal
Big Government
» Why Isn’t Anyone Really Investigating ACORN?Big Government
» ACORN Scandal, Part 2: The Evidentiary PhaseMudville Gazette
» War costs money (2)Green Room
» Going Un-Framed?Mudville Gazette
» Surrender, he whisperedPundit & Pundette
» The rebirth of Rom Houben
Sybil:
Seriously, you really should stop reading my posts. It seems you are the one with OCD.
If MM deems I should go then you can have a little party. It will be a bit curious to me why she wouldn’t ban all my co-conspirators (that means you and more or less everyone else happily going off topic) along with me.
Indeed! A good catch. I am surprised Manish didn’t have to write it three or four times for you to understand it.
MtsEdge:
I told you to read Kant AFTER carefully trying to explain how you don’t need a deity to derive morality from.
I only did so because you couldn’t seem to understand what I was telling you. I had hoped Kant (or many others) would do a better job of explaining then I could.
I can try again if you like.
Zero, I’m going to have to leave it at that…this thread is way off track.
MtsEdge:
Goodnight then. I hope you didn’t find me to be too offensive. I admit I can be rather brusque, but no insult is intended. I merely was trying to ensure a reply. Have a nice evening!
Zero, we’re cool. Have a good evening, as well.
Fixed another grammatical error for you. No need to thank me.
Sybil:
Ah! Indeed, I’ll thank you regardless! I also owe you a debt of gratitude to you for your hilarious #189.
I have re-read it about 3 times now and laughed a great deal each time.
The blood shooting out of the eyes things was particularly amusing.
STFU, indeed! How old did you say you were?
*thing (not things) beat ya to it!
66 and proud of it! I want to say a few other things to you, but would probably get banned. You have said so many things I could argue about and set you straight…but I just don’t have the will or the strength to deal with your obsessive neediness. So, to finalize our dialog, I will just say, you are right about everything, oh great one! You have never been wrong in anything you have said. Now you can leave peacefully and have a good night’s sleep, knowing that your reputation as all seeing, all knowing is intact. Peace.
Sybil:
Answered in post #178
In that bizarre set of facts, YES. However, this example has no basis in reality.
In a society where that kind of barbarism is accepted the opportunity probably wouldn’t be there to stop them. This goes back to what I posted in #186. I would really like you to deal with my post #186. I expended at least a couple of brain cells on it, not to mention agravating my carpal tunnel syndrome.
It seems as if I answer in a very realistic sense with real world application, and you come back with a non-reality based hypothesis from a Philosophy class in college. There’s a time and a place for those types of philisophical debates, but it seems to me we are trying to deal with a very real state that our current society is in where there are two diametrically opposing viewpoints. It took a long time to arrive at this point and for pro-lifers to start bombing and killing abortion providers wouldn’t solve anything, and would most probably cause the situation to worsen.
In your mind Zero, are you saying in today’s USA that if you came to believe that the fetus from conception is a baby and that abortion is murder, that you would grab your guns (I assume as a good conservative that you own several) and a few bombs and set out to kill abortionists and bomb clinics like Eric Rudolph?
To those who are annoyed with the off-topic conversation, I apologize. At this point consider it a private conversation between me and Zero.
Have at it, Joy! You are a stronger person than I am. Good luck!
Zero – Just so I don’t have to read the whole thread again, is it Happy that you are referring to as Sybil?
And if that is the case, me being a pro-Happy person and decidedly anti-Sad, and provided I wouldn’t get caught and provided I had the opportunity, should I kill you to defend Happyness (misspelling intended, no need for correction)?
Ah rats. Don’t you hate it when you blow the punchline to your own joke? I should have asked if I would be justified…
I remember a time I was on a rant talking to my employees (not scolding them or speaking TO them, just a gab session) and I made the comment of how, “I just hate it when people misspromounce things.”
Well, we all heard it… all I could do was roll my eyes at myself and laugh while they laughed at me.
Pondering all these philisophical issues has me pondering just what a Sadscrapper would be like…
Pasting dark clouds over photos of crying people?
Carpal tunnel isn’t fun… I think I’ll shut up for a while at least. Don’t anyone start clapping.
Joy, there is no such thing as a sadscrapper! As long as I can scrap, I am happy. Even if I couldn’t scrap, I think I would still be content because that is the way I have always been. Since I don’t have any photos of crying people, I guess that helps me stay happy. Just fun pictures of family gatherings, new babies, you know, happy stuff! Now, don’t confuse happy with someone who has their head in the sand and doesn’t understand what is going on. I get it. I just feel upbeat most of the time. Even now, with all the frustrations going on around me, and half of our retirement nest egg gone, I am fine. I think Christianity has something to do with it. Faith is very sustaining. Also happy genes. But don’t get me wrong…I can get very very angry at times…with liberal stupidity mostly. And the people who are trying to destroy MY country! And I have a hard time dealing with arrogance. The Al Gore types who KNOW they are right and you need not bother arguing, just bow down and worship at the altar of Gore. Ugh. In addition, I do like to say what is on my mind…sometimes that gets me in trouble, but at my age, so what? I have lived long enough to have earned the right to be outspoken.
Zero, it is your constant calling of Happy “Sybil” that makes me dislike you, not your spelling errors. I think it takes a certain (un)kind of person to be so mean, and after reading some of your bizarre questions today, I think I was right in my assessment. what kind of mind thinks up the moral equivalance things you thought up today? Killing is wrong, no matter who does the killing. It is most wrong when it kills innocents. I am way down deep in my bones a prolife person, and yet, I could not bomb a clinic or kill an abortionist, although the thought of standing by knowing what they are doing is abhorrant to me. I have to choose to fight as effectively as I can, and I do. But it is not easy to be in these shoes, believing so completely that there is a slaughter happening behind closed doors that I am not stopping with every ounce of my ability. We are a nation of laws, and that is where I have to choose to fight.
OK, I am back folks; wife and I went out for a late dinner. We had Thai, it was great, anyhow:
Joy:
So, am I to understand that the only thing stopping you from killing abortion doctors is respect for the law? Are you saying that abortion doctors deserve the death penalty?
I thought I addressed #186 well enough. I’ll try and expand upon the Nazi Germany idea. If I were a citizen growing up in Nazi Germany I couldn’t say how I would react, I wouldn’t be *me* after all, would I? If, *I* found myself time warped into Nazi Germany I would certainly find my way to some underground resistance and if I thought I could get away with it, kill Nazis at every opportunity.
I realize I am coming up with philosophy class questions. I am doing it on purpose to get to the root of the question. This is also why it’s done that way in philosophy class; that is, to reduce a moral question to a logical question and get at the heart of the dilemma. Obviously, I certainly don’t think anyone should bomb any clinics.
Yes, that is what I am saying. Fortunately for me, I don’t think a fetus is equal to a baby from conception. I guess I can’t understand how someone who honestly thinks it is can stand by and NOT try and blow up abortion clinics or at least wish someone did and applaud them when they do. The only conclusion that makes any sense to me is that they really don’t think it’s quite the same thing as killing a 3 year old.
As far as Sybil (Happy), the most I have done to her is make fun of her and indeed throw back in her face the same abuse she throws my way. This is hardly something worth killing someone over. In any case, she claims I am a troll and apparently is annoyed with my allegedly obsessive posting. This is untrue, she doesn’t care how much I post, it is my opinions she dislikes. If I agreed with her viewpoint she would likely be cheering right along with me. Furthermore, no doubt she thinks I am one of the people “ruining” her country. Well, obviously I disagree. In any case, I served this nation in war, surely that should buy me a lifetime of annoying postings on MM’s site.
Maniah:
Sorry, killing is sometimes justified. It’s just a matter of how bad a thing has to be before you start pulling out weapons. Pure pacifism is untenable, and arguably immoral.
Joy:
To expand on your points in #186 and to answer your question in #203 with a bit more detail:
IF I thought a fetus is equal to a baby from conception, I would regard Eric Rudolph as a hero. In the same way, I would regard a fictional bomber of a “euthanasia center” for 3 year olds (in our twisted, fictional society) as a hero.
Again, simply, I can’t see how you see abortion as quite the same thing as murder.
Zero – I already explained that I don’t believe all murders are the same. I think you’re confusing me with someone else.
I would also have to say, that you do not understand what a nation of laws is or what anarchy is about or about how a free society MUST work through it’s legal structure to endure. We cannot enact justice by taking life based on personal beliefs regardless of how strongly we believe what they do is wrong, when what they are doing is LEGAL.
If I press my belief with violence, what is to stop everyone from using violence to end something they believe is wrong? Code Pink would be ‘justified’ in their minds in not only bombing recruiting centers, but also ‘justified’ if they killed our troops. I would be killing abortion providers… PETA would be killing scientists and anyone who has a pet or eats meat…
You end up with total anarchy.
Concerning your rather fractious relationship with Happy… my comment was tongue in cheek and meant as humor. I’m a little shocked you couldn’t tell that, especially since I followed up by saying something about messing up the punchline of my own joke.
Apparently my humor is off today as Happy didn’t realize I was kidding about the Sadscrapper comment either.
Sheeeesh.
Joy:
So abortion is murder, but more along the lines of a 2nd degree murder or manslaughter? What do you think should be the proper punishment for abortion?
I understand exactly what a nation of laws is. I do not know how I can be clearer. If I honestly believed abortion is murder, sure I might get annoyed with Eric Rudolph and say things like, “he isn’t helping the cause” and “what he did was wrong.” However, in the back of my mind I would be saying, “the bastards got what they deserved.” In the same way, if OJ got shanked in prison (he is in prison finally, isn’t he?) I would say justice was served.
I know you were teasing about Sybil. Regardless, I felt as though I should explain myself.
A nation of laws only holds up and operates as a nation of laws because the people (for the most part) generally accept their laws as just. If I lived in a society were 3 yr olds were being murdered, laws be damned. The colonists in the Revolutionary War seemed to feel the same way about their government.
All that said, you think abortion is unjust but not nearly as unjust as killing a 3 yr old. If you agree abortion isn’t quite the same as killing a 3 year old, what would you equate it to? Is it equivalent to a crime of passion? Should the woman seeking an abortion be punished in addition to the doctor?
PS. I am not trying to be a pain, I am honestly trying to figure out exactly what a pro-lifer is thinking.
Our President has once again proven himself to be an absolute boor!
zero:
many years ago, my own 3 yr old son was murdered. I wanted revenge. I wanted payback. And I had to wrestle with my own conscience for some time: I had never been for the death penalty, but this was personal. In the end, I decided that my principles were as important as the punishment doled out, and I decided that it was wrong to want the death penalty for MY case when I had always believed it wrong for others. It was truly a test of my character not to kill the man who did this myself. what I WANTED and what was RIGHT are vastly different things, though. I am called to live my life as a Christian, and for me that means honoring my own heart and the principles I grew up with. It was the hardest thing I have ever done, but years later, I can live with myself. Of course, the pain is intense at times, and I still imagine him twisting in the wind. In the end, I had to try to do what would have made my son proud of me, and he was a baby, killing someone to avenge him made no sense, he was innocent, loving, and tender.
Abortion is morally very similar to killing a 3 yr old, in my mind, except that the law protects one and not the other, and of course there is the emotional connection elicited when we have become so attached to a living breathing child. I think one of the greatest achievements of the abortion industry has been its ability to keep abortion so private that MOST americans simply do not know the truth of what happens behind closed doors. If they did, if they knew what was being done, there would be an uproar. That is what drives good and decent people to resort to carrying horrofic, brutal signs (honest signs), but we as a society dont want to look, we want to keep on keeping on. The killing of a three yr old is a pubic thing, his face and his life are splashed in the news for us to see, we can empathaize with him, see ourselves in him. That is not true for most abortions, society wants them to be faceless, nameless blobs of tissue. Ultrasound changes that, which is why the indistry fights them so hard.
I do not often speak of my son, and hope you will parson me bringing a very personal life matter here, but your question seemed written for my experience. No, it is not the same, exactly, but it is not the VALUE of either life that makes it different, it is our PERCEPTION of one as more human than the other, and our empathetic and instinctual reaction to the killing of a precious little person with a name and a face.
RIP baby boy.
please excuse the typos above.
Maniah:
I am very sorry to hear that. That is terrible. My wife is currently pregnant and if 3 years later someone murdered my son, I am not sure how I would react. I imagine that I would let the legal system work its way out; but I also think, if I somehow could manage it and get away with it, I would kill the killer. Honestly, I am not sure. In your particular case, if this scumbag was killed in prison, I’d say he got what he deserved. Obviously, I am pro-death penalty.
I don’t share quite the same level of abhorrence to killing. In my mind I couldn’t have very well been a soldier and NOT think at least some people deserve to die.
Anyhow, Joy and Maniah:
Let’s cut through all of this and get right to the heart of the problem:
We all seem to agree that there is something “different” about abortion and euthanizing a perfectly healthy 3 yr old. What is the difference exactly? Maniah seems to think it’s because we can see the 3 yr old and have grown attached to it. Well, I don’t know if that’s true. First off, as pointed out, you CAN see a fetus nowadays. Secondly, we might have grown awfully attached to (for example) a 50 year old family member, but in some ways, I think killing a 3 year old just seems much more evil than killing a 50 yr old.
That said, what is the root of the difference? If I walk in on my wife having passionate sex with another man and in a fit of rage, kill the man; I would be guilty of a lesser crime than if I was aware of the affair for some time and methodically planned an elaborate scheme to murder him.
The difference there is in the intent and level of awareness of the “rightness” or “wrongness” of my actions. In the case of abortion vs. euthanizing a 3 yr old; that is not the difference.
What, then is the difference?
Maniah:
Sorry, one more thing. Yes, I did understand what you are saying about perception.
For you let’s take it a step further:
Is destroying a blastocyst (something with clearly no face or mind) equal to killing a 3 yr old? If not, why?
ok, zero, a question for you. If someone came in and stabbed your wife in the stomach right now (God forbid, and I hate even suggesting it) but your attachment to the “fetus” she is carrying would make you a very angry man, would it not? This child is in your mind as a person, a unique little one that you may have already imagined playing ball with, teaching to hunt, etc. (Ok, maybe watching ballet lol) so he or she is yours, in your heart. I would guess…hope…that your reaction would not be “hey you shouldnt have done that, but it wasnt killing, that was just a fetus”.
Now think about the baby of your neighbor being aborted as we speak, faceless, nameless, you have no warm fuzzy thoughts for that child, it is “a fetus” to you. The difference for some of us is that we can envision every baby as our own, and we recognize that calling it a fetus when it is unwanted and a baby when it is is nothing short of schizophrenic. Does that make sense? You will not start loving your baby when he is thre, presumably you love him now. God’s word (and morality, and even science) teaches us that every fetus is a baby, a member of the human world, and is already alive. Killing it is wrong, just as killing any other living thing is wrong. Some we justify more easily than others.
Maniah:
Being as how I am against late term abortions and my wife is in her 8th month, I WOULD consider that as VERY NEARLY murder. I would almost certainly horribly maim said man; if in a position to; and likely torture him a bit before a coup-de-grace. That said, I do not feel so strongly about it as to start bombing abortion clinics, but I am pretty sure that abortions in the 8th month are illegal in most states.
Now, if she were in her 10th week my reaction would be decidedly LESS violent and I would probably just maim him (assuming my wife would clearly survive the attack).
Can you please answer my question now?
in my mind, from a philosophical viewpoint, no. Both are a life. Im assuming you are speaking of this from my moral standpoint? Life is life, to me. A blastocyst is basically a 5 day after fertilization embryo. It is comprised of two cell types and a fluid cavity. It is unique in its DNA, and as far as I can see becomes human at fertilization. Nothing about it will change, nothing will be added that is not already there and will be there at 3, 30, or 103. If you believe people have souls, that soul is there from inception.
ps I responded the first time without reading your question, wasnt intentionally ignoring it I promise. And thank you for being civil with me zero, it is noted.
Maniah:
I am confused. You answered “no” but your answer seems to be “yes, both are a life, so killing a blastocyst is equal to killing a 3 yr old.” What do you mean a philosophical vs. moral standpoint? The two go hand in hand, IMHO.
Please clarify.
Mainah:
As I have said before, I am civil when people treat with me civility. Unfortunately, on this site, the mere mention of my atheism or some of my opinions is enough to incite raging hostility in some posters.
Likewise, thank you for being civil.
oops, you are right, I meant to say yes, they are equal. I want to add though that the problem with us human beings is that we are driven by all sorts of competing interests. Our better selves, or morality, that we hope to live by are sometimes in direct competition with our desires. So, yes, morally/ethically, a blastocyst is as human as a three yr old. But we are programmed to love our children, their faces are designed to incite loving feelins, protective feelings in us. Big eyes, soft skin, all that. Once they are observably human, it is easier to feel those parental feelings than it would be to see, say, an IVF transfer in the works, a blastocyst. It is not the LIFE we see that is different, it is our own perception of it and our ability to see US in it, that invokes the emotions. So yes, as much as my morals say both are equally human, clearly it is more emotionally taxing to imagine my three yr old dying than to imagine a blastocyst dying. But that is because of changes in ME, not in the beingness of the child, blastocyst or toddler. Hard to cuddle a blastocyst, or make memories with it. But that doesnt make it not human. This is exhausting.
Maniah:
OK, so then back to #221:
You mentioned a soul. I suspect that this is the root of the issue for you, am I wrong? For me, a blastocyst has no mind, and I don’t believe “souls” exist. Therefore, there is nothing there that could be said to be “human.” Being “unique” in it’s DNA means nothing. Consider a clone made from a skin cell and consider identical twins that come from one fertilized egg! Neither has unique DNA, but is still a person or persons.
You also said:
Again, I disagree, a brain and a mind is not there.
Yes, moral dilemmas and philosophy in general are taxing. So is working out a mathematical proof or writing a computer program. I do enjoy it though.
*to be accurate, I really should say a brain/mind, being as I am clearly not a dualist. Language is a pain like that sometimes.
Lunch BBL.
morality really has nothing to do with if this is a human being or not, but morality lends itself to the discussion, know what I mean? For me, the moral issue is the biggest, but it is backed by the scientific facts. Scientifically, NOTHING is added after conception that makes a blastcyst grow into a human being. That is the same as nothing being added to make a three yr old become a teenager, except of course, nourishment and a decent environment.
You might say there is no brain, but there is, it is a rudimentary system that only needs to grow and mature. Pluripotent cells exist in the fetal brain that also exist in the adult brain, even as early as the blastocyst stage. A newborn baby’s brain is not yet fully developed, either, obviously, it grows and matures. But every ingredient necessary is there from conception, the uniting of 23 of dads cells with 23 of Moms (or more, depending on lots of things that can happen along the way) Mitosis makes every change thereafter.
You say a blastocyst has no mind, and if you are talking about a sentient, aware thinking mind, you are of course right. But it does have a brain. and again, a newborn does not have self-awareness, either.
I understand that you do not believe souls exist, and I will refrain from saying more than that I am sorry you do not have the comofrt of knowing that you are more than just a body in this world, your presence is a maginificent work of art and your body is just the vessel that totes around the most important parts of you.
I enjoy this stuff too, though, when it is civil. I wish I was a smarter person and could argue cloning etc with you, but I wouldnt dare say more than this: I believe that the biggest moral dillema that people have with cloning is this very issue, the existence of a soul. I believe that God is in control, and that we create nothing that He Himself has not given us the intelligence to create. I believe that the God I believe in, sometimes against all reaso, has a plan for every living thing. That even means you.
I hope you will understand my inability to go much further debate wise, as we are getting in over my pay grade. I thank you for a very interesting discussion, although it certainly deviated from Ipods, didn’t it?
Heh. Hey, Michelle…. great minds, or what?
I never denied thinking that.
But what Eric Rudolph did is still wrong in a nation of laws. And the fact remains that if we all killed to stop someone else from doing what each of us find to be murder, like the examples I used in my previous post, everyone would be killing everyone else.
It has been an interesting discussion.
Congrats on the upcoming baby. I hope you don’t name it Zero Jr.
Maniah:
Forgive me if I seem to state things in no uncertain terms. I am not trying to be arrogant, but I would say that the idea that a blastocyst has a “brain” is patently false. That said; I will attempt to elaborate.
Pluripotent cells in a blastocyst have not yet differentiated into neurons (or skin cells, muscle cells, etc.). There is nothing that carries anything that could be said to be thought. That is, a blastocyst doesn’t “think” anymore than a skin cell does. I am not certain that pluripotent cells exist in an adult brain; assuming they do, they also exist alongside neurons that actually do carry “thought.” A blastocyst most certainly does not have a “brain.” It has cells that could become a brain, but there is no brain in a blastocyst anymore than there is a brain in any of my skin tissue.
I would say the instant any neurons begin to form, it would be a different matter, but yet, until a more complex brain forms there is no complex “thought” and certainly no concept of “self.” A newborn might not have the same concept of “self” that a 3 year old has, but it certainly has much more than a collection of skin cells or blastocyst, which, indeed, have nothing of the sort.
There is “potential” for a blastocyst to become a human being. But there is also “potential” for a human being to be created if you were to have sex with a random stranger. By not doing so, you may have denied a unique individual his/her “life.”
I am not sorry about “knowing” I am nothing more than just a mind-body. Indeed, the idea of “knowing” that is all I am does give me great comfort. It allows me to appreciate my life that much more. I do not look forward to any afterlife and just make the most of what I know I have.
Briefly, regarding god, souls, and clones: why can’t clones get “souls” too? Furthermore, when does one imagine a “soul” enters a cell? Is it at the moment of fertilization? What if that egg is destined to split into twins? Do two souls appear at the instant of the split or are they already there anticipating the split? What if the fertilized egg fails to implant? Does the soul then leave or had it never arrived?
In any case, I did enjoy the discussion as well. It does seem to me that this idea of a soul is central to this debate. I had suspected it and indeed if I believed in a soul I think my position on abortion would be very different. If you would like to continue with some of my above questions, please do. If not, we can end here.
The discussion clearly did go very far from iPods, but this is much more interesting anyway.
Joy:
Indeed? I am actually a bit taken aback by this. You do seem to be consistent though.
Thank you ref. my son. We are not naming him junior anything, he is getting his own unique name *smile*.
Zero – I didn’t read much of your exchange with Mainah, so as not to get distracted from what we were talking about, until now. There are some things I’d like to follow up with if you’re still up for it. But I’ve done my hands in and couldn’t do it until possibly Monday.
If you check back, leave a note saying you’d like to and bookmark the thread and we can carry on then. I’ve very much enjoyed the discussion.
Joy:
Sure. Monday sounds good. Likewise, I am enjoying the discussion, until then.
Good thing I checked back. Today was going to be the last time I peeked at this thread. *smile*
I saw in the other thread that you were going to avoid MM for the rest of the day, so let’s take it back up tomorrow instead. I’m still not quite up to it.
Besides, I still have ‘Doe, a deer, a female deer’ running around in my head. Hard to discuss serious stuff with that in my head. lol
Hey Joy:
Just email me, I am going to try and visit MM’s less and less since I’m am spending too much time on this site at work.
You can find my email in the recent 300+ comment thread about Muslims.