I agree on the scale of things, it’s a pretty small hypocrisy, but still, it is one.
(Is this blog on American Thinker thing similar to the blog on Daily Kos (which I don’t read either) thing that we had such a to-do about recently? 'Cause frankly, I really see no point in getting bent out of shape about the fulminations and loaded vocabularies of third-rate thinkers of any stripe.)
Frankly, yes, it was. Apparently the blog is loaded. The straight news story would have served your testamental purposes just as well.
You people are just not getting it. She did it to draw attention to the growing problem of cell phone usage during driving. She is sacrificing herself for the benefit of all of you, and you just don’t care. Hyenas, the lot of you!
He could have talked about the abuse of “Democratic” (instead of “Democrat”) power and avoided an irritating GOP meme at the beginning of his screed.
Here’s a less partisan account of Ms. Migden’s alleged serial reckless driving and arrogance of power.
By the way, is it true that lesbians preferentially drive Subaru Foresters? I have a female relative who won’t consider buying one for that reason.
Really.
As a California Liberal[sup]TM[/sup], I feel fully qualified to assert that the California state legislature is by and large a bunch of idiots who give liberals as a whole a bad name. I also feel that anyone who gets into an accident because they were talking on their cell phone and weaving between lanes ought to be hit in the head with a tack hammer for the good of the species.
That said, I’m not seeing a case for political hypocrisy here. Migden voted for a good law which is obviously needed as evidenced by her very own behavior. Elected representatives should not only vote for laws they personally support passionately, they should also vote for laws that their constituency supports or needs. The fact that she’s a frickin’ moron who shouldn’t be allowed to drive a car is a separate issue.
Not to defend her here, but the law hadn’t taken affect. Even someone who lobbies for a law on the basis that it would make everyone better off if it were enacted isn’t necessarily obligated to follow it before its enacted: the point is to get everyone to do it. Of course, I bet she probably said some things in advocating for the bill that would make her a real hypocrite, but this blog was apparently too lazy to dig up any. Also, in what universe is BLOOD regularly drawn at traffic accidents, especially when someone has already passed a field sobriety test and breathalyser? I know that the police aren’t perfect, but accusing them of corruption on 0 evidence other than that it would make the story juicer seems a little lame.
What pisses me off more about this behavior is not driving with a cell phone but her attitude afterwards. Politicians that do something obviously wrong like drive off the fucking road and endanger other people’s lives should probably have MORE humility, even if its faked, than less.
According to that story, she was observed not just on the cell phone but also “reading.”
WHAT?
Now THAT is truly out there in terms of irresponsibility.
Midgen is just a State Senator anyway, it’s not like she’s of any national significance.
Now, let’s not be too hasty. Maybe it was the Bible.
If a straight news story would’ve served just as well, then what’s the problem? Ah yes, it would’ve been politically neutral, and wouldn’t have been torn to shreds by the teeming millions as a result, right?
This is me, prostrating myself: :rolleyes:
The problem is, by using that blog to make your case against Migden, you raise questions about the verisimiltude of the entire event. The blog is so strongly biased (and more than a little bigoted, going by that first paragraph) that many people (myself included) are disinclined to take anything it says at face value, and are more likely to assume that the events described have been spun, taken out of context, or entirely fabricated to score some cheap political points. Which is why it would have been to your benefit to have used a politically neutral story as the basis for your rant, as it would have helped people to focus on the story itself, and not concerns over the reliablity of the source.
I don’t get it. Most people in here are agreeing with you that she is, to some extent at least, a hypocrite. What most who have read the blog seem to have issues with is its tone: arrogance, Democrat, lesbian, whatever.
If your purpose was anything beyond throwing chum to the sharks, it seems to me that a news story would have suited you just fine. If, instead, the point was to demonstrate that Democrats are arrogant lesbian hypocrites, well, good luck with that.
I was talking about the SDMB. Buzzflash isn’t exactly representative of the media, by the way. Janklow’s party affiliation was not a significant part of the coverge and was not considered important by any liberals/Dems that I know. You can always find an example for any kooky point of view or opportunistic political angle on the internet, but that doesn’t mean it’s legitimate to extropolate it as a popular partisan consensus.
Oh, come on…if you advocate for a law on the basis that it would make everyone better off if it were enacted, then you really really ought to model that behavior, whether or not the law is ever passed. I couldn’t care less what political party someone is affiliated with…if they think it’s SO dangerous for people to drive while talking on the phone that there needs to be a law against it, then they damn well shouldn’t do it.
As the issue of blood tests certainly seems to have been. If she was READING in the car and THEN reached for a cellphone, that’s more than enough to explain erratic driving, and given that the police say they tested her on the scene and deny that there is any evidence of “influence” unless someone can come up with a better explanation than “well, the cops are part of a coverup” and start speculating that she was probably hopped up on smack and needed a blood test, you’re in pretty silly territory, in a story that hardly needs more in it to condemn the lady.
Like I said, I bet you could dig up quotes of her saying that its wrong and dangerous, but the blog (and now you) have so far failed to do that legwork. In the absence of that, I’m just pointing out that wanting something to be outlawed for everyone does not necessarily equate with thinking that individuals shouldn’t take advantage of some benefit that causes social harm while they can.
I don’t think there needs to be quotes. I think she has a reason for wanting the law enacted, and if she believes in the reason, then that is a good enough reason for her not to do it. Do you really think that her belief is that everyone should hurry up and make lots of cell phone calls while driving NOW…before her law goes into effect?
God, Apos. What is it with you? Your arguments have gone to shit, and so has your board protocol. Yesterday, you were in Cafe Society arguing that communism was not original to Karl Marx, and today you’re in the Pit making a Three Stooges ethics argument. Take a pill, dude.
I never at any time claimed it was a widespread or mainstream view. Just like connecting Migden to Democratic behavior in general would be similarly fringe behavior. Didn’t stop the OP and his linked blog from doing so.