When I was a kid, I collected stamps.
I also collected baseball cards.
Well, I did, until a rather unfortunate incident that occurred at the end of one summer, upon my return home from sleep-away camp. My mother had thrown my entire collection in the trash. “WHAT!?” I shrieked in horror. “I HAD THE WHOLE FIRST SERIES, AND THE WHOLE SECOND SERIES, AND PART OF THE THIRD, AND A MICKEY MANTLE CARD IN MINT CONDITION, AND…” My mother was unimpressed, and, it seemed, she displayed not a shred of remorse. “The cards were collecting dust in your closet,” she informed me. And then she got to the heart of the matter. “Besides,” she said, “girls don’t collect baseball cards.”
Ah, the 50’s. Good times…
But, I digress…
Anyway, now I collect something entirely different.
I have become an avid collector of Liberal Moral Equivalences.
Libs, bless their hearts, will invariably say something ridiculous whenever they open their mouths. And, sometimes, their stupidity is framed as a “moral equivalence.”
My list is getting very long.
First, some definitions of terms, as “moral relativism” and “moral equivalence,” are, it seems, sometimes used interchangeably. But, while related, they are, in fact, different.
“Moral relativism” refers to the notion that, in our diverse, multicultural world, no one culture is better than another culture, so that no judgments can be made about a specific culture.
In the U.S.A., a day off may be spent having a picnic with family and friends, enjoying a barbecue, tossing a Frisbee, or maybe catching a ball game, while, in some Islamic countries, a day off might entail having the village gather to watch a woman being shoved waist-deep into a hole in the ground, while everyone throws boulders until she is stoned to death, all because she is suspected of having committed adultery.
See? Different strokes for different folks.
In The New Thought Police, Tammy wrote about the danger of such a world-view:
Multiculturalism is not about exotic restaurants and charming street fairs. It is a code word for moral relativism. Accepting the notion that all ideas and systems are equal precludes a willingness to think critically about what surrounds us. It is the cornerstone of our inability to come to judgments about events…. (p. 150)
Moral equivalence, on the other hand, is a deceptive device used by Liberals to “prove” their points by taking the focus away from the obvious evil, and focusing on what they perceive to be the more “immediate problem.”
Here is a moral equivalence specimen from my collection:
On May 10, 2004, on the floor of the Senate, Sen. Ted Kennedy made the following statement:
“Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam’s torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management.”
Translation: So, even though Saddam Hussein may have murdered hundreds of thousands of people through unspeakably gruesome tortures, a few rogue U.S. guards at Abu Ghraib forced some suspected Al Qaeda terrorists to wear underwear on their heads! Outrageous!
Anyway, I’m telling you all of this because last week, I bagged two new moral equivalences for my collection. On the same day!
via The Weekly Standard:
During President Obama’s trip to Israel last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to apologize for the “operational mistakes” that in May 2010 led to the deaths of nine Turks who attacked Israeli commandoes after they boarded the Turkish-sponsored Mavi Marmara to prevent it from violating the maritime blockade of Gaza….In Istanbul, Kerry compared the emotions surrounding the deaths of nine armed Turkish nationals attacking the armed forces of an American ally to Boston’s response to the bombings Monday that killed three, including an eight-year-old boy.
Mr. Kerry said he understood the anger and frustration of those Turks who lost friends and family in the raid….“We have just been through the week of Boston, and I have deep feelings for what happens when you have violence, when something that happens when you lose people that are near and dear to you,” he said. “It affects the community; it affects the country.
So, losing family members who arm themselves, try to break the maritime blockade of another country, and attack and try to kill the Israeli commandoes who board their vessel is the same as losing loved ones running in a marathon or watching on the sidelines? Um, ok…
Often, a Liberal moral equivalence is nothing more than a craven, vicious, gutless, morally-and-intellectually-bankrupt attempt to attack “the enemy,” i.e. Conservatives. And sometimes, like Kerry’s pronouncement, it’s just plain idiotic.
And sometimes the moral equivalences are just plain absurd.
Like this one:
via Washington Times:
Longtime feminist activist Gloria Steinem on Sunday compared some state-level efforts in the U.S. to limit “reproductive freedom” to the wide-ranging and intrusive controls on women in the male-dominated kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
The subjugation of women in the slowly evolving traditional Islamic society is “different in degree but not in kind from the opposition we see in this country in state legislatures to reproductive freedom as a basic human right,” said Ms. Steinem in a discussion at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York…
Ms. Steinem, an early icon of the American feminist movement, made her comments in a post-screening discussion following the U.S. premiere of “Wadjda,” a pathbreaking Saudi film directed by Haifaa Al Mansour. The film is both the first Saudi feature directed by a woman and the first to be shot inside the kingdom….
“Wadjda” is the story of a spunky 10-year old Saudi girl (Waad Mohammed) who can’t help bumping against the tight restraints on female freedom in her rigidly sex-segregated Wahabbist society, where even the bicycle she yearns to race is feared as a threat to traditional feminine modesty.
As the Washington Times notes:
In Saudi Arabia, a conservative Muslim monarchy, women may not presently vote or drive, nor may they travel, work, marry, divorce or check into a public hospital without male permission.
So, there you have it: maybe Saudi Arabia has all these restrictions on women, but those horrible anti-Roe v. Wade nutjobs are also restrictive!
By the way, speaking of bikes, someone really needs to tell Ms. Steinem that she is as relevant today as a fish is to a bicycle.