Dignity, Always Dignity

As actor212 points out in the comments, Tristram-Shandy caught Dan Riehl making with the puns…

Shake, Rattle and Rolling Into November

Yes, one of the Jerky Boyz, Michael J. Fox supports McCaskill. Allah has the video and Dean Barnett weighs in here. Hell, I’m not even opposed to stem cell research, however I am against public funding because I respect people who see it as a valid moral issue. What I can’t respect is displacing science with emotion on issues of national import, something Fox deliberately set out to do – so I don’t feel a need to worship at his scientifically shaky position, just now.

See, it’s funny because it’s true.  Although not quite as funny as sticking the phrase “I respect people who see it as a valid moral issue” in the midst of three jokey references to the symptoms suffered by the victim of a catastrophic illness.  Now that’s comedy gold.

Posted by scott on Wednesday, October 25th, 2006 at 3:43 pm.

16 Responses to "Dignity, Always Dignity"

Obviously, in Dan’s world, Terry Schiavo was just the Singing Detective only without the rash.

Left by actor212 on October 25th, 2006

Wow-Mike Adams finally has some competition for the “I’m the biggest asshole around” crown (which kinda looks like that cardboard “Burger King” crown, but less dignified.)

Left by Bill S on October 25th, 2006

Bill,
Martini Republic is having a debate about who the stupidest person posting in the Blogosphere is: Dan Riehl or Marty Peretz.
Obviously, Dan Riehl has pulled out to a sizable lead. he really wants this win!

Left by actor212 on October 25th, 2006

Hey.
I’ve got a valid moral objection to invading another country for spurious reasons, bombing, and killing the inhabitants, and creating a de facto civil war.
So I’m sure Dan will come out against using public financing for the Iraq war. Let Cheney pay for it himself!
And no emotional pleas to nationalism or terror.

Left by TC on October 25th, 2006

I’ve got a valid moral objection to invading another country for spurious reasons, bombing, and killing the inhabitants, and creating a de facto civil war.
Also, capital punishment shouldn’t be publicly funded, on the same grounds. And antidrug legislation. And discrimination against gays. Hey, this is a great libertarian argument against public funding of anything someone has a moral objection to!

Left by Dr. BDH on October 25th, 2006

I respect people who see it as a valid moral issue

What qualifies as a “moral issue” anyway? You could use that argument about anything!

Left by probabilityZero on October 25th, 2006

“The Jerky Boyz”?? ExCUSE me? Well, I guess we figured out a long time ago that there’s no level too low for these idiots to sink to, yet somehow I’m always kind of, you know, taken aback. And isn’t it nice to know that, among the many things Mr. Riehl does respect (?), that displacing science with emotion on issues of national import certainly isn’t one of them. Gag!

Left by BeginningToWonder on October 25th, 2006

I’m opposed to the government giving money to corporations or religions, and against NASA and road building, all of which things have led directly or indirectly to the deaths of people with more cells than anything you’ll find in a petrie dish. Dan, you support me on this, right?

Left by D. Sidhe on October 26th, 2006

That comment about opposing public funding for [whatever] is seen by [whoever] as a valid moral issue is a pluperfect example of these folks’ apparent inability to generalize the real-world outcomes of their own nutball pronouncements.
As for the snark about involuntary movements… Riehl probably thinks they mark him as one of the tough guys.

Left by Li'l Innocent on October 26th, 2006

That should have been “public funding for [whatever] WHICH is seen by [whoever] as a valid moral issue”. Still sloppy but y’all know what I mean.

Left by Li'l Innocent on October 26th, 2006

“What I can’t respect is displacing science with emotion on issues of national import, something Fox deliberately set out to do”
Now if that was refering to Fox Newz it would have hit the nail on the head.
And when did the wingnuts become all bent about displacing science with emotion? Terry Schiavo anyone? Or anything having to do with Muslims?

Left by King Spirula on October 26th, 2006

I’m morally opposed to paying the salary of vice presidents who advocate torture of captives. I have to assume his statement “It’s a no-brainer” means “I have no brain.”
Your Pal,
Max Edison

Left by Max Edison on October 26th, 2006

Majoring in medicine there, Max?

Left by actor212 on October 26th, 2006

See, here’s the deal: If you are opposed to medicines developed from publically-funded stem cell research then DON’T ACCEPT ANY!
In the future, let’s say you are slipping into Alzeimer’s. There are treatments available that could take care of some of the more horrible aspects of the disease, but because these treatments were developed with stem cells, you CAN REFUSE THE TREATMENTS. Simple as that. Of course you then must suffer the disease but you’ve made the moral choice according to your own ethical stance. And you’ve done it without screwing with other people’s lives.

Left by jpj on October 26th, 2006

What I can’t respect is displacing science with emotion on issues of national import
That WMD-Detecto-Ray sure panned out for them. Science Rox!

Left by bink on October 26th, 2006

So wait, the side which is “displacing science with emotion” is the one advocating scientific research with tight controls, not the one advocating banning all research because killing snowflake babies is eeeevil?

Left by tigrismus on October 26th, 2006