My Photo


« Godwin's Law | Main | A Cold Kentucky Reign »

Tuesday, March 07, 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Nicely done. Bravo.


As long as I'm attacking my own side, allow me to present one of my all-time least favorite Catholics--and given how many Catholics I've known in my life, that's saying something.

Ladies and gentlemen, embarrassment to my own religion, William Donohue:

From the February 9 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country:

DONOHUE: Well, look, there are people in Hollywood, not all of them, but there are some people who are nothing more than harlots. They will do anything for the buck. They wouldn't care. If you asked them to sodomize their own mother in a movie, they would do so, and they would do it with a smile on their face. You know, it's such a cop-out to talk about freedom of expression.


HENDRIX: Really? I think that's a founding principle of this country. How is that a cop-out? Do you not appreciate the Constitution and the Bill or Rights?


DONOHUE: Yeah, why don't you shut up -- why don't you shut up and let me finish, all right?

HENDRIX: Oh, lord.

DONOHUE: I didn't interrupt you, pal. The fact of the matter --


HENDRIX: We're not pals.

DONOHUE: -- is that freedom of expression, freedom of speech, which is in the First Amendment, is a means toward an end. It is not an end in itself --

HENDRIX: What do you think the end is?

DONOHUE: It is a mean toward the good society. And my freedom of speech is also conditioned on you shutting up while I'm speaking.

From the December 15, 2005, edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country:

DONOHUE: Well, I heard that from other people that it is, artistically, a good movie, so I haven't -- going to see it. Gay cowboy doesn't interest me. I am going to go see King Kong. I suspect the people who make these kind of movies, though -- like gay cowboy -- would go to see a movie called The Gay Gorilla. But that's the difference between Hollywood and mainstream.

Terry Knight

In regards to spurious reasoning, (do you suppose the base word would be spur?, as in this reasoning needs a good spurring to force it one way or the other) there was a man named Hobson who's history might be consulted. His was such an interesting case that we're now left with a dictionary definition that illuminates the inherent conundrum of autonomy.

Hobson's choice \HOB-suhnz-CHOIS\, noun:
A choice without an alternative; the thing offered or nothing.

The origin of the term Hobson's choice is said to be in the name of one Thomas Hobson (ca. 1544-1631), at Cambridge, England, who kept a livery stable and required every customer to take either the horse nearest the stable door or none at all.

As it relates to spurious reasoning, there are and always will be choices in life that are really no choices at all, as in the numerous article proposals of who to save in fires. Me, I'm saving my own butt first.

Drawing definitive conclusions from Hobson's choices is really just a matter of subjective values and nothing more.

Now I choose to mash the post, wait...aghhh

The comments to this entry are closed.