The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Democrat Blasts Condi for Being Childless

Posted by iusbvision on January 26, 2007

The American people have been bombarded with three themes from the Democrats since they took power in Congress; namely the empowerment of women, a new era of bi-partisanship, and the new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) has promised that she would run the most ethical Congress in history.

The new Congress has been seated less than a month and all three of those themes have already been shattered.

During a Senate hearing about the Iraq War, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California) blasted Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice saying, “Who pays the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price,” Boxer said. “My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young.” Then Boxer says to Rice, “You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family.”

Truly breathtaking.

An attack like that has all sorts of insinuations and angles with the first being the obvious implication that Sec. Rice is homosexual. John Kerry pulled the homosexual card by dropping Dick Cheney’s daughters name during the 2004 presidential campaign in hopes that those “meanies” on the Christian right would never vote for someone who had a homosexual child. It didn’t work.

There have been childless men who have commanded troops during wartime, even generals and presidents, and yet they were never faced with an attack such as this. So now if women sacrifice a family to climb to the top as Rice has done she is suddenly not qualified to be Secretary of State? Perhaps it is not women who should stay home and get pregnant but rather it is black women like Dr. Rice who should keep their place. Is that what you are trying to tell us Senator Boxer?

It has been my experience that these tactics are typical of the far left. They cannot beat Rice in a fair argument so it is better to just disqualify her from having an opinion and from being Secretary of State with a sleazy attack. Hateful left wing hyper-partisans use such tactics against me almost every day in hate mail and in the Vision blog.

The House is not doing any better. After much pomp and circumstance heralding in the first female Speaker of the House, Speaker Pelosi gave speech after speech telling us about the empowerment of women, a new era of bi-partisanship, and a special focus on ethics.

One of the first acts of our new female Speaker was to remove Representative Jane Harman who was the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee and replace her with a less qualified man and why? Rep. Harman was actually bi-partisan. Harman didn’t just talk the talk she walked the walk and was able to work with members from both parties in an honest spirit of cooperation. The Intelligence Committee is supposed to be non-partisan anyway.

Ethics? Rep. William Jefferson (D-La) was caught red handed with $90,000 in illegal cash contributions that he tried to recover from his freezer after hurricane Katrina and the Democrats have still taken no action against him.

Remember that minimum wage bill that the Democrats have drawn up? The bill exempts the new minimum wage from some companies in Speaker Pelosi’s district and the Democrats are ruling any discussion out of order so as to censor this from being discussed on the House floor.

We are not even one month into this new Congress.

Chuck Norton

11 Responses to “Democrat Blasts Condi for Being Childless”

  1. G. Frege said

    1. To say point out that someone does not have children does not imply that that person is a homosexual. Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that it does imply that person is a homosexual. Then imagine that I am at a dinner party. The person who I am talking to is speaking about their children. They stop, mid-story, and ask me if I have any children. I say, “no,” which is, in fact, the case. Now, if pointing out that someone has no children implies that that person is a homosexual, then by saying that I have no children, I would be implying that I am a homosexual. And this is clearly absurd, since it can be the case both that someone has no children and is not a homosexual. And this is, indeed, my own case. So, it is not the case that pointing out that someone does not have children implies that they are homosexual, as was suggested in the above article.

    2. Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that Boxer’s comments to Rice imply that no one without children is capable of having direction over troops in wartime. If this is the case, then, as the above article rightly points out, it would imply that generals such as Eisenhower were incapable of having direction over troops in wartime. And this is absurd. Therefore, it is either the case that Boxer’s comments to Rice imply that no one without children is capable of having direction over troops in wartime–in which case her comments would be absurd–or it is the case that Boxer’s comments to Rice do not imply that no one without children is capable of having direction over troops in wartime. But the latter is more probable given Boxer’s preceding comments “Who pays the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price, my kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young.” This comment is meant to compare Boxer’s situation (having children, but none in war) to Rice’s situation (having no children). If it were the case that Boxer’s comments to Rice imply that no one without children is capable of having direction over troops in wartime, then, given Boxer’s comparison between her and Rice’s situations, it would also be the case that Boxer’s comments to Rice imply that no one who has children, but does not have them in war, is capable of having direction over troops in wartime. But this would be a truly absurd statement. Therefore it is more probable that Boxer’s comments to Rice do not imply that no one without children is capable of having direction over troops in wartime.

    3.The above article, on the one hand, asserts “We are not even one month into this new Congress.” On the other hand, the article asserts “Rep. William Jefferson (D-La) was caught red handed with $90,000 in illegal cash contributions that he tried to recover from his freezer after hurricane Katrina and the Democrats have still taken no action against him.” These two statements are inconsistent. One the one hand, the above article asserts that Democrats have committed many bad acts in a short period of time. On the other hand, the above article asserts that Democrats have not done enough good acts in a long period of time. Since the period of time in both cases is the same, it cannot both be the case that this period of time is both short and long.

  2. G. Frege said

    4.Correlation does not imply causation. That is, if two events (X and Y) occur sequentially, this does not imply that X causes Y. Suppose I eat a can of sardines. Then I become sick. It does not follow that the can of sardines is the cause of my sickness, since it could instead be the case that my roommate is the cause of my sickness.
    The above article makes the logical fallacy of assuming that correlation implies causation.
    Argument from the above article:
    Premise 1: Speaker Pelosi removed Representative Harman from the
    House Intelligence Committee.
    Premise 2: Representative Harman is bi-partisan.
    Conclusion: Therefore Speaker Pelosi removed Representative
    Harman because Harman is bipartisan.

    This argument is invalid since it makes the fallacy of assuming that correlation implies causation. The fact that two events are associated does not mean that the first event caused the second event.

    [Chuck Norton responds:

    Of course your argument is a lie of omission as it omits key facts, namely that Democrats have a history and pattern of behavior in personally attacking conservative gays, blacks (Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell etc) and Hispanics (eg Miguel Estrada in the Democrats own Judiciary Committee memo’s said that he must be defeated because he is Latino); the latest rave among the far left is to OUT people who they suspect is gay and in the closet. When many accused the Democrats of making a homosexual allegation/attack did said Senator come out and say that is not what she meant?

    There is nothing illogical about pointing out a recognizable pattern of behavior.]

  3. Sam said

    Sorry, I’m not supposed to be posting anymore because I said I wouldn’t in another thread. (Sorry) But there was no way I could avoid affirming this idea of correlations not inferring cause and effect. I teach this every day in my advanced statistics courses and this one notion could be one of the most important pinnacles underlying inferential statistics.

  4. Rachel Custer said

    Sam,

    Hi! Please don’t leave.

    G. Frege,

    Some very good points, most of which I agree with. I don’t think Senator Boxer’s statements can be taken as an implication that Condoleezza Rice is a homosexual. The objection I had to Senator Boxer’s statement was more impacted by my stance as a woman and, to some extent, a feminist; therefore, surprisingly, it was the more liberal part of me that objected to Boxer’s statements, and not the conservative part of me. (Hope I didn’t lose anyone there.) Women have come so far since the days when our ability to do a job was defined by our marital and parenthood status. I was surprised to hear a liberal woman make a statement that seemed to venture a (at least partial) return to that mindset. I also thought it was a bit of a cheap shot, and an example of one woman in power seeking to undermine another woman in power by using archaic, patriarchal ideas, rather than assuming a position of mutual support at least as far as these ideas go.

    While your arguments are very good, and very intelligent, I feel the second one could use just a bit more discussion. I do think Boxer was implying that Rice cannot understand how parents with sons and daughters in the war feel. This is not necessarily a bad thing; it may be possible that neither women can understand how those people feel. However, in my opinion, there was a clear implication that Rice may not be able to do the best job due to this, and I think that is where Boxer crossed the line.

    It should be remembered, too, that the men and women who are fighting are just that – men and women. Not children, not people who have been forced into service; men and women who volunteered for a position in the armed forces. How parents feel should have little bearing on how the “supervisors” of the military tell these men and women to do their job. My mother and father certainly don’t dictate to my bosses how I do my job anymore.

    All in all, though, thanks very much for your intelligent comments. The correlation/causality statement was right on (although to be honest, in politics I wouldn’t be surprised if there was causality, but I agree that it can’t be inferred by the statements in the article.)

  5. Kevin C. said

    Woah! Easy there with the personal attacks G. Frege. And by personal attacks, I mean an attack on something Chuck Norton has personally written. I find your arguments pretty rigorous, G. Frege, and I must admit I am a bit surprised that Mr. Norton has not responded to them. In fact, your arguments are almost worthy of the great philosopher of mathematics Gottlob Frege. He’s actually someone I greatly admire. Of course “G. Frege” could not be Gottlob Frege, since the latter died in 1925. “Frege” is not a very common name these days, so I suppose it was probably someone posting as the great philosopher. I suppose the poster, like me, was probably a great admirer of the man. I am actually a bit surprised that someone posting on these boards has heard of Gottlob Frege. I mean, I have, but who else besides me has? Hmmm…

  6. Chuck Norton said

    G. Frege

    As to your statement that you don’t think that Senator Boxer’s outrageous comments towards Secretary Rice could be an implication of homosexuality. I would simply say this, so what, lots of people think that the Big Mac is the best burger you can get, lots don’t. The point is that plenty of people did take Boxer’s comment just that way and a few google searches will demonstrate that reality.

    Of course the greater point is that Senator Boxer should not have said such thing to anyone. It is nasty, heartless, and cruel and it tells us something about Senator Boxer. It also tells us something about many Democrats who did not speak out against such a horrible comment.

    Imagine the reaction if Trent Lott said such a thing to Janet Reno. Reno has sent men to die on several occasions. If Lott had said such a thing to Reno the media and the Democrats would have had a proverbial cow.

    As far as your third comment (go read it up above) you deliberately ignored my point, invented a new one and applied that to me for the purpose of knocking it down. That tactic is called the straw man argument. Speaker Pelosi has said repeatedly that she would run the most ethical House in history and so far Mr.$90,000 in illegal cash in his freezer has not been expelled, the Democrats on the Ethics Committee have not taken stern action and Pelosi has been trying to get her own favorite pet companies exempted from the new minimum wage law. Of course there is also the issues with the labor in her own vineyard, but that is for another column.

    Thank you for reading the Vision.

  7. Bret Matrix said

    She would have been better off calling Ms. Rice “clean and articulate”.

  8. Rachel Custer said

    Bret,

    Lol. Ms. Rice is clean and articulate. And by clean, I mean she is one classy woman. I honestly think Biden’s comments got blown out of proportion, but that is the nature of politics; everything everybody says becomes public record and open fodder. They choose it, so I leave them to it. But good crack.

  9. anonymous said

    How is G. Frege’s 3rd point a straw man argument? Chuck frequently accuses his critics of using this tactic, but rarely, if ever, does he properly apply the terminology.

    Based on Chuck’s actual article, G. Frege made a very reasonable observation. Chuck set up his article to make the case that Pelosi has broken “the three themes” of this Democratic congress, the third of which has to do with ethics. Regarding Jefferson, this is all Chuck actually wrote:

    “Ethics? Rep. William Jefferson (D-La) was caught red handed with $90,000 in illegal cash contributions that he tried to recover from his freezer after hurricane Katrina and the Democrats have still taken no action against him.”

    This fact, by itself, does not in any way support Chuck’s accusation that Pelosi displays weak ethics because it happened before they were in power. G. Frege pointed this out, and is accused of making a straw man argument?

    Apparently Chuck believes his article implied the additional arguments provided in his rambling rebuttal to G. Frege:

    “the Democrats on the Ethics Committee have not taken stern action and Pelosi has been trying to get her own favorite pet companies exempted from the new minimum wage law. Of course there is also the issues with the labor in her own vineyard, but that is for another column.”

    Chuck: it is your job to make your point clear; your readers should not have to guess what you’re trying say. And, when they make a valid criticism of your writing, you should have the decency to elaborate without making bullshit accusations.

  10. Sam said

    After reading an absurd conclusion such as “An attack like that has all sorts of insinuations and angles with the first being the obvious implication that Sec. Rice is homosexual” – or “Reno has sent men to die on several occasions” – I just move on. Norton is a partisan imbecile who cannot be reasoned with.

  11. Rachel Custer said

    Sam can’t face the possibility of living without my genius insights into all life. :) Or, more possibly, he’s bored at work.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: