Friday, September 19, 2008

Making fun of Dailykos

Well, I dunno if she is with Dailykos in any official capacity, but Diana Hsieh is unpleasant enough to throw in with the peanut gallery. Like most liberals, she doesn't like Sarah Palin. Incidentally, she also is not a fundamentally decent human being. Her full post is here. Entirely fair commentary is below.

Before delving in, I'll note that the name of this blog is "Noodle Food: A Daily Dose of Philosophical Food For Your Noodle."

Now, if this were a "baby pooped today" blog, I would cut Mz. Hsieh some slack. Alas, the chick pretends to have ideas, and so she is fair game. Evisceration cometh.

The title of Hsieh's piece is "The Worship of Retardation". Um, excuse me? To be fair, Hsieh is a Chinese name, with all that entails about selective fetal distruction. Nonetheless, this is a horrible title for anything.

She begins thusly:

"I wish Sarah Palin's youngest son Trig -- afflicted with Down's Syndrome -- the best life possible to him. Yet based on my experience working with a man with Down's Syndrome in a high school job at a movie theater, I regard his life as inherently tragic and likely quite miserable."


I kid you not, that is what this woman said. Let's construct a syllogism here:

1) Trig Palin has down syndrome.

2) I knew a guy who worked in a movie theater.

3) Blank.

4) The lives of those with down syndrome are inherently miserable.

What the IHOP? I used to work at a calling center with a dark-haired man. He had a hard time with women. Conclusion: All men with dark hair have a hard time with women. Is Mz. HSSHSH's world, this is sound thinking.

Most of all, however, I'm disgusted by the the worship of retardation exhibited by Christians in response to Trig's rise to national prominence, as in this National Review article by Michael Franc:


In fairness, I am a Christian, and I am evoking this post. Guilty as charged, I guess. But Franc is the one accused of retardation-worship, so let's hear what he has to say.

Per Michael Franc:

But these special children, and the special adults they grow up to be, inspire something else of equal importance. When these little, unexpected ambassadors of God enter our lives, they offer us the opportunity to rise to that greatest of all challenges — to treat others as we would want to be treated. Their presence, in short, elevates all of us.


What a horrendous thing to say. Those born with mental disabilities should be executed on sight? That Michael Franc is a... Oh, wait, you mean he is saying simply that these children have value? That seems reasonable. What is the problem again?

"That's a good expression of the mind-set of so many of today's devout Christians. They are not content to limit reason to make room for faith."


Of course, reason abounds in this particular screed (see above). And how, pray tell, would reason inform our opinion on the issue?

They go further: they laud retardation as a virtue. In the process, they must -- and do -- disparage normal human intelligence as a vice.


Not to Mz. Shah. If you are going to make light of retardation, do make an extra effort to utilize proper punctuation. Superfluous colons are of no virtue to anyone. That said, isn't it better to be extraordinary than ordinary? Is the author arguing that mediocrity is not a vice?

Normal human intelligence gave us the housing crisis, the Holocaust, and Jimmy Carter. Nice work, "normal human intelligence". Normal human intelligence sucks because the normal human has no intelligence to speak of. As such, most of us faithy people rely on wisdom, which comes from God. I'll take a wise Trig over a normally intelligent Diana Hsbeksistn any day.

"Such people are not motivated by a soft heart. If they were, they would adamantly defend abortion as a moral means of freeing parents from the prospect of endless sacrifice to a retarded child."


Of course, regular children receive only occasional sacrifice. Parents are free to cease their sacrifice at a certain point. Thank goodness most children are born healthy. Otherwise we'd NEVER be able to neglect them.

"They would regard abortion as a moral way to prevent the infliction of a miserable, degraded life on the person that will emerge from the womb. Instead, they want to create more mentally defective and perpetually dependent children by outlawing abortion."


I'm trying to make heads or tails of this. Is it possible to inflict life on something? How does that work? Of course, in a world where ideologies literally "create" babies, I suppose nothing is off the table. Not only do conservatives inflict life on retarded people, but they even create them.

"The people who worship retardation reject human reason as a value. They're as anti-man as the deep ecologists who regard mankind as a cancer on the earth."


What the hell is a deep ecologist? Someone who understands the fundamentals of punctuation? This isn't deep, it's more of the same.

That said, how does human reason (ignoring the category error) come to the conclusion that it is better to be dead than alive with a disability? If this is a standard for humanity, then let's get with the killin'. No points for guessing where I would begin that particular blood purge.

"Frankly, one wonders why such people don't lobotomize themselves, if retardation is such a boon to their fellow man."

Oh, good. The "one wonders" dodge. Yes, the author is concluding her bizarrely incendiary post with an equivocal commentary on the mind set of his or her fellow man. Makes sense.

That said, what would be the purpose of paying for a sudden lobotomy when writers like Diana Shizznit are so willing to take our hand and guide us into world of "back lobe" thinking, free of charge? The probable result of mass lobotmy would be a sharp uptick in subscriptions to Newsweek.

If the author is correct, and retardation is not a boon to mankind, then neither are most children. Children tend to be stupid by virtue of the fact that they are, you know, children. The brightest couple in the world runs every risk of having a baby with "normal" human reason. In a worst case scenario, such children grow up to produce lazy blog pieces such as this.

And so on. This is a terrible piece critiquing reasonable people for taking a reasonable viewpoint w/r/t Palin's baby. Mz. Shoe is a poor writer generally, which is hard to swallow when she leverages her skills to bemoan the power of the mentally disabled to alter the American pzyche.

Of course, the most compelling argument against abortion fails any reasonable standard of logic. What better way to shirk this inconvenient fact than by insulting prominent Republicans? Perhaps those with normal human intelligence might make the time to reconcicle the discrepancy here.

Better yet, and instead, why not take their infants to task for, you know, existing. The bastards.

And that's my cultural minute.

4 Comments:

Blogger Adam Omelianchuk said...

Ms. H. clearly has the "life unworthy of life" mental framework that worked so well for the Nazis. When you get down to it, this is what the pro-abortion platform is all about when it comes to Down syndrome babies.

8:06 AM  
Blogger Kevin Sawyer said...

But Adam, it's complicated. It's too complicated to make comparisons. Since the issue is so complicated, it's best that we simply maintain the status quo. We shouldn't try to make ethical or moral decisions about things that are complicated.

That said, I'm pretty sure this ad will play well against Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anieuWFWe8s&feature=related

10:03 AM  
Blogger Kevin Sawyer said...

And today, Charlie Rangel, the prototype of a black-power Democrat, decided that Palin is disabled. Never mind that she is prettier and smarter than he is.

9:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Take a chill pill, Kevin.

5:35 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home