Over the weekend, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman took a few minutes off from his slavish boosterism of totalitarianism and Communist China to tell us all what it means to be pro-life in a column modestly titled Why I Am Pro-Life. What we learn is that he really hasn’t a clue on the subject.
This cri de coeur from Friedman comes from the success that social conservatives are experiencing in Republican primary elections. He takes aim at Richard Mourdock (who knocked off RINO Richard Lugar), Todd Aiken (who defeated two other pro-life candidates but has achieved notoriety with his unfortunate exegesis on human biology), and Joe Walsh (whose apparent sin is running against the rent-seeking Tammy Duckworth) and uses them as a point of departure to describe what being “pro-life” really means.
Not unsurprisingly from someone who is a big fan of a country that has a policy of forced abortions, pro-life doesn’t actually include being pro-life, rather pro-life in Friedman’s dystopic vision is lots of government regulation. Again unsurprisingly.
In his own inept way, Friedman tries to adopt George Lakoff’s “frames,” the concept that was so popular with liberals back in 2004, to co-opt the meaning of the term. To Read More……
My Take – The left has been from the very beginning completely aware that they can only win if they can redefine reality. That means almost everything they say is a logical fallacy. Friedman is no different. What is really scary is he has won a Pulitzer Prize.
No comments:
Post a Comment