|
February 20, 2007
The Culture War (and why "we" fight)
Lest anyone think the I kid you not. The great issue of the day for the forces on each side of the Culture War looks like this: And the argument against them looks like this: "I personally am tired of explaining to my 11-year-old son why they (women) are depicted on mudflaps , but not all women are 36Ds. He's very confused by that," Ulmer said. "But seriously, this is about family values -- what are we going to send out as a message to our children."I guess that means war, with the AFA on the side of God and against sex, and the ACLU on the side of the truckers and depravity. Sigh. I never really thought about what message I was sending out by allowing a truckdriver to have mud flaps like that. But since "we" means me, maybe we should start requiring size 36D mud flaps on all trucks. That way, the nasty Islamists will have a tougher time driving fuel tankers into bridges and stuff, because their refusal to display the mud flaps will stand out in advance of their attacks. Just a thought. And if we really wanted to freak out the Islamist enemies, we could go further yet by returning to the days before the culture war, and bring back the "bomber girls" like these: If you think that's bad, check out this bestially suggestive image: Here's one designed for flying over the hump: I think the above are more impressive than the mudflaps they want to ban. Of course, the latter are only about trucker morale, while the former are about war morale, but hell, we're in a war, aren't we? That's why I suggested making them mandatory. Supposedly, bomber nose art was banned in recent years, but I can't verify this. But at least in the old days, they really knew how to fight a culture war. Why, they even had girls on the hood! I'm telling you, the Culture War is Hell! MORE: Laura W. at Ace of Spades has more on the claim by Rep. Ableser that he had seen mud flaps with a derogatory term for black children -- "pickaninny" -- and there is some discussion in the comments as to whether any such mud flaps exist. I've never seen one, and a diligent search failed to find one. Is it possible that Ableser just made it up, and that the real goal was to ban the girl silhouettes? AND MORE: Believe it or not "mud flap" is listed here as a racial slur. posted by Eric on 02.20.07 at 09:53 AM
Comments
"I get tired of explaining" means he's never done it properly. The boy would stop asking if he understood. "Son, it's because lonely men get confused between pictures and a real woman. Women are important, especially when you haven't got one." This is another example of parents lying about what bothers their children, pretending they didn't set up the whole thing, if it happened at all. Liberals do it a lot -- "Mommy, why is that mean liar Bush still President?" Here's a fine example of it from the right. Socrates · February 20, 2007 11:46 AM I suspect that either the legislator is lying or she is being played for a sucker by her 11 year old son (given the apparent intelligence level of the average legislator I would bet on the latter) Poopstain · February 20, 2007 12:47 PM Quote: "Tempe Democrat Ed Ableser sponsored the amendment." M. Simon · February 20, 2007 06:30 PM Ulmer (the mom quoted above) is also a Democrat. Republicans spoke against the bill. This really has nothing to do with Democrats versus Republicans. Bob Barr is on the board of the ACLU. And of course, I remember feminists working with fundamentalist Christians against Howard Stern. Collusion is collusion. (Here they also tried to use race as a cover, but I think the real goal was getting rid of the girl silhouettes.) Eric Scheie · February 20, 2007 07:34 PM Woohoo! I get to side with truckers and depravity! Anyway, what is most remarkable to me about the dialogue with this law is how many solid legal arguments are put forth that come close to getting the job done and outlawing the mudflaps. Truckers have to get liscenced, or there are similar decency laws in place, or commercial laws, etc. This is really why I don't believe the Constitution is much protection anymore. Everything we do has to be regulated and liscenced, meaning there is no such thing as a truly private activity anymore. Because the state is involved in everything, there's no true arena of freedom, and thus, there's no real absolute protection for any right, no matter how simple or seemingly bullet-proof. Apolgies for spelling. I'm tripping on Nyquol. Jon Thompson · February 21, 2007 04:15 AM If yew kin read the word pickaninny on mah mud flaps, yew're too dang close! richard mcenroe · February 21, 2007 10:38 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
February 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
February 2007
January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Outside the Wire
(I should probably never say never) Please don't make me refrain! Duke And The Cultural Marxist Program Democracy! Whiskey! What? forgive us our pork Too inconvenient for Al Gore? RINO Carnival -- Dashiell Hammett edition The Culture War (and why "we" fight) Congressman Manzullo Speaks
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Cheered me up.
I especially liked the "guns" up front.