Friday, November 19, 2004
The morals gap
A desperate-for-sex woman (and by implication an adulterous housewife) literally throws her naked body at a stud athlete in an NFL locker room and he responds, "my team will have to win without me." Is this wrong behavior, or is it just something that is embarrassing to see on national television because it is a properly private moment? If you want to see a good example of the gap in moral understanding between blue-state America and red-state America, read what San Francisco Chronicle sportswriter Ann Killion has to say:
We all know that some women do in fact hang around outside of pro-sports locker-rooms offering sex to celebrity atheletes they have never met before. The ABC promo put a fig-leaf on the transaction by having Owens know "Idi's" name. Oh, so he picked her up outside the locker-room once before. The reference to the pro-sports desert-tray of anonymous sex is unavoidable. And this gets sprung on family TV at 6 p.m.?
Killian's indifference shows the depth of the divide between blue-state and red-state America. In place of tolerance (the understanding that error must often be abided), blue-staters substitute an ethic of "non-judgmentalism," to the point where they have managed to render themselves blind to the moral landscape of the world. Reuters won't call terrorists terrorists on the grounds that "one man's terrorists is another man's 'freedom fighter'." People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals champion the slogan: "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" (coined by PETA co-founder and President Ingrid Newkirk, Vogue Magazine, September 1989). Non-judgmentalism is a crock. We TOLERATE even desperate housewives throwing themselves at stud athletes for an expected sexual thrill. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be judged harshly!
Is there a parallel here to the blue-state mindset on abortion, where any recognition of unborn life is feverishly rejected as a threat to abortion rights, even to the point of protesting Laci and Connor's law? Are blue-staters thinking that ANY recognition of morality must be resisted as a surrender to their ideological opposites? Sure looks like it. That is what makes the Global War on Terror such a problem for the blue-staters. GWOT is about recognizing right and wrong, and the need to fight on the side of right. That is problematic for people who see any distinction between right and wrong as a concession to their political opponents. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. This is giving yourself a moral lobotomy to spite you know not what (having given yourself a moral lobotomy).
Yup. That's why the blog is titled Error Theory.
UPDATE: The above is slightly edited, after my seeing the full video. (I had earlier seen an abbreviated clip on the news that made the encounter look completely anonymous.)
Also, I just discovered a great new tool: Blog Search Engine. To see who else is commenting on your subject, just put in a few keywords (e.g. Nicollette Sheridan and Terrell Owens) and go. Be prepared for a “yikes.” Like this awesome lefty fruitcake response, in full moral-lobotomy mode (all the way through to an anti-morality attack on GWOT). Slacktivist thinks that wanting to protect children from slut-like behavior shows that CONSERVATIVES have dirty minds. Well, I guess I can see how someone might think that, if he has NO mind!
Oh, now I get it. I've figured out why there's so much outrage over last Monday Night Football's opening segment, in which actress Nicollette Sheridan seduces Philadelphia receiver Terrell Owens.She continues in this vein for the rest of the article. Anyone with moral sentience is dumbfounded. How can a mother of two fail to distinguish between what is embarrassing but moral (graying couples still wanting to have sex) and what is embarrassing and grotesquely immoral (Desperate Housewives throwing themselves at celebrity athletes for sex)?
It must be because Owens didn't reach for his Viagra or Levitra before Sheridan dropped her towel.
What an outrage that someone missed that kind of opportunity for cross-promotion!
I can't quite work up much anger over the titillating segment that merged two of my favorite programs: ``Desperate Housewives'' and ``The T.O. Show.''
Offensive to families? Hey, I have two kids. We love to watch sports as a family. But there are a lot more embarrassing things than watching the Owens spot. How about spending the entire World Series watching the Viagra ``Wild Thing'' commercial? How about having to explain erectile dysfunction and the linebacker blitz in the same sentence? How about the 49ers running onto the field through a pumped-up helmet with the Levitra logo on it?
We all know that some women do in fact hang around outside of pro-sports locker-rooms offering sex to celebrity atheletes they have never met before. The ABC promo put a fig-leaf on the transaction by having Owens know "Idi's" name. Oh, so he picked her up outside the locker-room once before. The reference to the pro-sports desert-tray of anonymous sex is unavoidable. And this gets sprung on family TV at 6 p.m.?
Killian's indifference shows the depth of the divide between blue-state and red-state America. In place of tolerance (the understanding that error must often be abided), blue-staters substitute an ethic of "non-judgmentalism," to the point where they have managed to render themselves blind to the moral landscape of the world. Reuters won't call terrorists terrorists on the grounds that "one man's terrorists is another man's 'freedom fighter'." People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals champion the slogan: "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" (coined by PETA co-founder and President Ingrid Newkirk, Vogue Magazine, September 1989). Non-judgmentalism is a crock. We TOLERATE even desperate housewives throwing themselves at stud athletes for an expected sexual thrill. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be judged harshly!
Is there a parallel here to the blue-state mindset on abortion, where any recognition of unborn life is feverishly rejected as a threat to abortion rights, even to the point of protesting Laci and Connor's law? Are blue-staters thinking that ANY recognition of morality must be resisted as a surrender to their ideological opposites? Sure looks like it. That is what makes the Global War on Terror such a problem for the blue-staters. GWOT is about recognizing right and wrong, and the need to fight on the side of right. That is problematic for people who see any distinction between right and wrong as a concession to their political opponents. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. This is giving yourself a moral lobotomy to spite you know not what (having given yourself a moral lobotomy).
Yup. That's why the blog is titled Error Theory.
UPDATE: The above is slightly edited, after my seeing the full video. (I had earlier seen an abbreviated clip on the news that made the encounter look completely anonymous.)
Also, I just discovered a great new tool: Blog Search Engine. To see who else is commenting on your subject, just put in a few keywords (e.g. Nicollette Sheridan and Terrell Owens) and go. Be prepared for a “yikes.” Like this awesome lefty fruitcake response, in full moral-lobotomy mode (all the way through to an anti-morality attack on GWOT). Slacktivist thinks that wanting to protect children from slut-like behavior shows that CONSERVATIVES have dirty minds. Well, I guess I can see how someone might think that, if he has NO mind!
