Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (33678)	2/11/1999 5:26:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

True enough, but politicians frequently use topical material to make a point.

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (33678)	2/11/1999 8:30:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

This quite misses the point of Quayle's argument. We see the thing more clearly when we apply the logic of your point here to a glorified depiction of two men who engage in a contest to see which can have sex with the most STD free women within a specified time period. In this sitcom, the men each are constantly on the prowl for their next experience, "humourously" scheming to get their temporary partners certified "boinkable" before they bed them. Eventually one of the men is shown victoriously presenting, this, amidst music, confetti and sprays of champagne, a long list of women he has slept with. The depiction ends with the two male combatants vowing to reengage this battle as soon as they can recover. Such a scenario, while possibly humorous to many, is not exactly "realistic" in that it is not yet the general pattern of men. Nevertheless its lack of reality does not give network television moral recourse to use its power to esteem the concept of even this sort of promiscuity. Ditto even Murphy Brown's version of single parenthood. Perhaps you will now make the mistake of claiming I have placed single parents in the same category (call it "deviants") as those who are promiscuous. If so you would claim a falsehood. I deal here in essentials, not individuals. The essence of Quayle's argument is that single parenthood is not an ideal, that in fact it is a pall upon our culture that should by no means (especially not by "unrealistic" women) be generally lauded. One may certainly laud single parents, as many of them are quite heroic. But they are heroic because they struggle courageously within undesirable circumstances. The parent here is laudable, his/her condition is not. This is essentially Quayle's point; and to my way of thinking, he is right. I find television generally ridiculous. I also find it painfully boring. Consequently I do not have a television anywhere in my home; (I do have a few elsewhere, but only to watch CSPAN, etc.), and so I have never seen Murphy Brown (MB), Seinfeld, Friends, or any of the shows over which my countrymen have drooled for the last fifteen years. I tell you this to make the point that I personally could not care less about the lives of empty-headed sitcom characters! I hardly think Quayle is much concerned here either. It is the issue of the treatment of single parenthood that concerns me. Apparently this concerned Dan Quayle. From all I have heard, MB presented single-parenthood as but another choice amongst human family structures. Apparently it supported single-parenthood as a laudable institution instead of supporting some single parents as laudable people. I can understand how a compassionate person might want to do this to try encouraging single parents. But, like Quayle, I think it better to encourage single parents and not single parenthood.