Anne Rice endorses Hillary Clinton.
My list of grievances
1. There's no way Peter would give her better than a C- is she were to turn this in for an ENGL 101 paper.
2. Blogs are nice in that they can be personal, and off-the-cuff, but logic is nicer. Logic supported by evidence is better.
3. This line: "the Democratic Party best reflects the values I hold based on the Gospels. Those values are most intensely expressed for me in the Gospel of Matthew, but they are expressed in all the gospels. Those values involve feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison, and above all, loving one’s neighbors and loving one’s enemies." is tired. Jesus was in fact addressing individuals about what those individuals should do. If Hillary Clinton as a Senator votes for a policy that gives food to the poor or as President signs such a bill into law, she did not in fact feed the poor. The money that is spent on government policies is NOT the politicians' personal money. Taking money by threat to fund a federal program is nowhere in the gospels. In fact Jesus didn't really care all that much about what the government did. He cared about individuals. This is somewhat related to the fallacy of those who are overly concerned about government that society equals government. It does not. Society can and does feed millions of needy without government coercion.
4. Does she realize that the DNC says, "Choice is a fundamental, constitutional right. (Aug 2000)"
Well, my first complaint is that the Website has one of those annoying musical features. Playing the Ave Maria in the background is pretty corny.
My second complaint is that the entire argument rests on premises of her "feelings" on the topics. Granted, it's a blog...so it's like her personal thoughts. But it's all pathos and no logos.
Thirdly, she doesn't really talk about the pro-life movement as much as she talks about the anti-abortion movement.
She's a recent "convert" so maybe she still needs time to really understand what the Church's position is on this matter.
I'm certainly willing to concede that there are pro-life politicians who espouse the philosophy in name only...but if she thinks Billary is sincere about her efforts to make political decisions in accordance with the Gospel, she is more naive that I can comprehend.
I think much of the problem boils down to language. The left seems attractive because it sounds like a more direct solution. The right seems callous because it seems to call for an indirect solution. In reality, however, the right is more direct: have people give their own money to the poor. The left, however, wants the money to be funneled through a third party. In essence, I'm mostly just paraphrasing Al's arguments, but I feel like it bears repeating over and over again until people on the left can see how the right really has many of the same goals...it just has more elegant means.
Posted by: PeterTerp | August 19, 2007 at 11:29 AM