Welcome to Daily Contentions... Born in February 2003, DC is a daily-updated weblog covering a wide variety of issues, contemporary and timeless-- always with a unique perspective and open attitude.
As much as I don't like the man, O'Reilly does occasionally have moments of cogency.
In this clip he has a guest named Don Schweitzer, a family law attorney who opposes gay marriage.
Without actually taking a direct stance on gay marriage itself, O'Reilly lays into the arguments that Schweitzer musters. The arguments, I must say, are astonishingly weak. No wonder that O'Reilly comes off so intelligently in this interview.
First, Schweitzer's only argument is that marriage has traditionally been defined as being between a man and a woman, therefore we should not change it (indeed, he says, we cannot change it). The California Supreme Court noted this argument as well and responded in part with the example of state bans on interracial marriage. Tradition alone did not and should not have saved those bans.
Second, O'Reilly and Schweitzer show their ignorance of the law when they suggest that this case may get reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Schweitzer says that 'this has become a federal question' because gay marriage proponents have 'inserted this definition of marriage into the constitution.' Utter bunk. The California Supreme Court ruled based only upon the California constitution. There is no federal question here.
Have you heard of the latest "scandal" regarding Rachel Ray, a traditional Arabic scarf, and a Duncan Donut ad?
Let me set the scene. Food Network chef Rachel Ray, who also has her own daytime talkshow, is a spokesman for Duncan Dunuts. Appearing in the company's latest ad, she is wearing an adaptation of a 'keffiyeh,' a traditional Arabic scarf. Certain conservative commentators, led by Michele Malkin, condemned the ad for containing a symbol that supports radical Islam and terrorism. Duncan Donuts then pulled the ad.
You know me. You know that I am as adamant a voice against radicalized Islam as anyone. But I simply cannot bring myself to get all worked up by this. On the contrary, this is an example of silly political correctness coming from the conservative side of the fence.
In Malkin's post on the flap she discusses how the keffiyeh has been worn by Muslim extremists and terrorists. She concludes that this scarf is thus a symbol of violence and hatred.
For some people this conclusion obviously holds. But for others it most assuredly does not. Numerous non-terrorist Arabs wear this scarf. As Malkin pointed out, it's a traditional item in Arabic apparel. Imagine, if you will, that some crazy militia group in America adopted green-colored trucker hats as a symbol of hate. Would that then spoil the trucker hat for all of us? (not that I wear trucker hats)
Malkin wrote: "Fashion statements may seem insignificant, but when they lead to the mainstreaming of violence--unintentionally or not--they matter."
But she's got it exactly reversed. When good people wear this scarf--when the scarf becomes mainstreamed--it loses any symbolism that terrorists would like to attach to it. To employ Malkin's brand of political correctness would be to let the radicals co-opt the keffiyeh.
I'd rather isolate the terrorists from the Arabic culture than let them forcibly entangle themselves within it.
Back to one of my favorite themes here on DC: the impact of technology on mankind's humanity.
Susan Greenfield, a neuroscientist by trade, has written a column in the UK's Daily Mail strongly arguing that advanced electronic technology such as cell phones, video games, and various handheld devices is actually changing the way our brains work. The negative impact, she says, includes a reduction in many people's communication skills and ability to think in abstract manners.
Here is the column's enticing lede:
Human identity, the idea that defines each and every one of us, could be facing an unprecedented crisis.
It is a crisis that would threaten long-held notions of who we are, what we do and how we behave. It goes right to the heart - or the head - of us all.
This crisis could reshape how we interact with each other, alter what makes us happy, and modify our capacity for reaching our full potential as individuals.
And it's caused by one simple fact: the human brain, that most sensitive of organs, is under threat from the modern world.
The short is that the demographics voted basically as expected. Blacks and college-educated whites (to a lesser extent) went for Obama, while whites without a college education went for Hillary. Interestingly, if you look at the exit polls by household earnings, there was not an economic division in the support.
Finally, it is very likely that Republicans voting for Hillary for strategic reasons gave her the edge she needed. Here is CBS's breakdown of the so-called Limbaugh-effect, and here is Andrew Sullivan's post on the matter.
I'll probably post some analysis tonight or tomorrow. What's clear is that the court ruled under the California constitution, not the federal constitution.
The Indiana primary, ongoing: heavy voter turnout and high level of Republican crossover
By Luke
Well, I went to the polls at about 10 a.m. and did the deed. As is usual for my polling place, especially in non-peak hours, there was basically nobody there except for me. I asked one of the poll workers about turnout, though, and he did say it seemed a bit higher than normal.
However, the story appears to be different in Indianapolis, where according to officials turnout is extremely heavy--comparable to general election participation.
Also of note is that in certain areas of Indianapolis, Republican crossovers seem to be very very heavy. In one precinct that went Republican in the last election, only a small fraction of the ballots requested today were GOP. I'm not sure which candidate that bodes best for overall, but at least in one of the neighborhoods mentioned, based on the demographic there, I see the votes going for Obama.
This is the feared toll from Cyclone Nargis, which struck the nation on Saturday. Many of the casualties are a result from the massive storm surge which flooded the delta region that was directly hit.
This is a sober reminder of the great tragedy that can befall humanity. Puts high gas prices, home foreclosures, and the latest political scandals in perspective, wouldn't you say?
Back on April 16 I discussed the role Indiana would play in the Democratic Party's nomination process, and I explained why I thought the Hoosier State would not be a slam dunk for Hillary.
Now nearly 3 weeks have passed since that post, and the attention has been firmly on the state. My family has been called twice by pollsters, twice by the campaigns, and a few times by PACs. We've also received multiple pieces of primary-related mail.
Obama's campaign seems more organized and energetic. His operatives have been on the streets passing out literature and schmoozing. His momentum has taken a hit here, though, as the polls have shown, most likely because of the continued flap over his ex-pastor.
So what's the outlook for tomorrow? My guess is that Hillary takes it, but by a margin less than 5%. Here's a few interesting notes that might impact the outcome:
- Obama appeared for the full hour on "Meet the Press" on Sunday. The show, done live from Indianapolis, trumped Hillary's appearance on "This Week" by many fold.
- Lots of Republicans in Hamilton County (northern suburbs of Indianapolis) are asking for early ballots. This trend undoubtedly will repeat itself on election day and in other suburbs of Indy. What is unclear is what this means for the results. Could it be that this area, which is composed of numerous affluent whites, will contribute to the national trend of Republicans switching to vote for Obama in surprising numbers? Or is it a result of Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos"?
The interesting thing about Indiana is that nobody seems to be that confident in predicting how the different areas of the state will vote. When we look at how Clinton and Obama have split the demographics, Indiana provides an example of diversity that makes prediction difficult. I'll have more on this following the primary.
