Posted by: bridget | 17 July 2007

Forget the Second Amendment – It’s Sex Ed for Bambi and Thumper!

Sorry for the ancient, pre-blog entry, but something triggered a memory today & it’s too good to not share.

In Dec. 2005, the NYT published an editorial by Mr. Kristof, which advocated killing deer to prevent their overpopulation and death by starvation. An enlightened individual then wrote this letter to the editor:

To the Editor:

Re “For Environmental Balance, Pick Up a Rifle,” by Nicholas D. Kristof (column, Dec. 4):

Yes, deer overpopulation is a serious problem in parts of our country. But the correct solution in the short term includes the development and employment of birth-control techniques for deer. In the long term, the correct solution includes re-establishing ecological balance through the reintroduction of the predators that we hunted into local extinction.

Mr. Kristof defends hunting by calling it “natural,” but not all “natural” activities (making war, for example) are morally acceptable.

The factors that make it generally immoral to kill a human are the same factors that make it generally wrong to kill a deer: making a sentient creature suffer and, more important, taking from that creature the thing that is of greatest value to it, the remainder of its life.

Hunting is not wrong where the practice is essential to maintaining human life. But it is wrong to hunt in the United States in the 21st century.

Howard Pospesel
Grand Island, Fla., Dec. 4, 2005

The pachyderm just wants to know how this lad wants to go about implementing “birth-control techniques for deer.” Will Trojan come in “regular” and “deer” sizes? Take Back the Forest? Not that she’s complaining, mind you – it sure beats “reintroduction of the predators.”

Insight would be appreciated.

The super-fabulous Queen of Swords responded thus:

That is so f’in hilarious. Who these pantywaists? Lemme shrink their heads real quick: they identify with the deer. Like the deer, they have been allowed to overpopulate because their natural predators have been hunted into extinction by the big, bad, unenlightened conservatives who fight and win wars. But here’s where they show their lack of fitness for survival: in their panicked fear of the “hunters” with guns (equivalent to the big, bad conservatives who are actually their protectors), they would rather see the return of their “natural” predators (Nazis, Communists, Fascists, crazy African warlords, and poor, misunderstood Islamofascists).

Stepping outside the metaphor for a second—does anyone know what has happened where the natural predators of deer (i.e., mountain lions and wolves) have been allowed to breed unmolested? Anyone? Anyone? Thaaaaat’s right! They’ve started attacking and mauling/killing humans in those areas, correctly identifying them as easy prey. That’s the problem with “solutions” offered by liberals—they get everyone else killed along with their dumb asses.
How’d ya like that?

One for the ages. Had to share.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. The thing that gets me about letters like these is that I just can never be sure whether they were written in the spirit of genuine conviction. It is harebrained enough to cast doubts on the seriousness of the author, yet not quite funny enough to cast off doubts that it might not be satire. Jonathan Swift was SO easy compared to stuff these days.

  2. Can’t make this stuff up. Some of the Left’s stuff satarises itself. (See my Nobel Laureate post.)

  3. I agree the letter to the editor is a bit ridiculous… especially the birth control idea.

    As for the Queen of Swords… FDR fought the Nazis and fascists. He wasn’t a conservative. Both sides of the isle fought the communists, or rather, national independence movements in poor countries that contained some communists. Crazy African warlords have never been our predators. And it is widely agreed by every intelligence agency everywhere that the conservatives in charge of our country these days have only put is in more danger from crazy jihadis.

    That’s the problem with “solutions” offered by conservatives–they get everyone else killed along with their dumb asses.

  4. Thanks for the laugh to start the day! I thought the letter writer was penning satire at first, but I think he was serious.

  5. Thanks for the good laugh. :) However, I did fall for the bambi thing- but I do know deer have to be dealt with. I see them a lot aound here. The birth control image will keep me laughing for days!
    -mz

  6. Neil & Zabs,

    You’re welcome. I just keep trying to imagine deer using standard birth control. Or what can you do? Tranquillise them, haul them into a vet’s office, and sterlise them? That’s expensive and would make the deer talk about this kidnapping by alien forms who perform experiments on you. ;)

    Eric,

    If the fabulous Queen decides to respond, fine. I’m not going to – suffice to say that I agree with her, not out of principle, but because I’m familiar with what you cite and truly believe that conservatives have done a lot more to rid the world of crazies.

  7. For what it’s worth I did not choose to cite those examples. I have taken the Queen’s framework of who the crazies have been in this world (my framework, for example, would include the crazies supported by conservatives, not just the ones they have fought against).

  8. […] You have to read where it came from. […]

  9. “It’s Sex Ed for Bambi and Thumper!”

    And don’t forget sex ed. for kindergarteners.

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/sex-ed-for-kind.html

    Now if only I could figure out what he means by “age appropriate.”

  10. It is well worth the repeat.
    Thanks for the chuckle.

  11. What do you wanna bet that the writer is pro-abortion? Just a guess. People who claim to value the lives of animals the same as humans, usually don’t really value human life.

  12. Eric,

    I read it; I thought it was amusing and accurate and posted it. Frankly, I have ZERO desire to deal with nit-picking on my own blog. Q0S is studying for the bar and doesn’t have oodles of time to waste, either.

    If you don’t find it amusing or accurate, fine. But you apparently missed the “joke” aspect of it and fail to realise that it becomes utterly humourless when backed up with footnotes and a blog debate about the proper weighting of each party’s contribution to the destruction of each group in question, the efficacy of their actions, and the validity thereof.

  13. Tammi,

    I’ll put $10 on that one. As I’ve said before, it cracks me up when vegetarians are pro-choice and anti-death penalty. It’s wrong to kill animals for food and murderers to save the innocent, but slaughtering an infant is A-okay.

  14. A couple of years ago somebody did a study on crop damage by deer here in Indiana. It was published in a farm magazine, along with a comment from a DNR spokesman saying that the problem was caused by farmers failing to hunt deer.

  15. “The pachyderm just wants to know how this lad wants to go about implementing “birth-control techniques for deer.” Will Trojan come in “regular” and “deer” sizes?”

    Briget, You know better than that, they exclusively use the “rhythm method” they are Catholic.

    ……….steve

  16. Steve,

    Hence the overpopulation….?

  17. Bridget,

    The QoS may have been making a joke, but it was a very political one and intended just as much for a laugh as to make a political statement. Sorry if you all want to entertain ridiculous ideas about the US left for the purposes of a good snicker, but forgive me for not feeling sorry about ruining your good time when I point out how broken your humorous analogies are.

  18. And to comment on your description of my first comment as “nit-picking”:

    Your post consists of essentially two parts:

    Part 1
    – publishing a letter to the NYT
    – highlighting the humerous elements of the letter.

    Part 2
    – comments by the QoS that explicitly use humor for political purposes (i.e. to demonstrate the absurdity of leftism).

    You say I am “nit-picking” when literally half of your post consists of a highly political discussion of leftism. It’s not that I “missed the ‘joke,'” but rather that you missed how centrally political the bit from QoS is.

    Orwell’s Animal Farm is humorous, but that humor is also central to his far more important political message. There is nothing “nit-picky” about addressing the political reality addressed by a political joke (and again, the political joke in your post takes up almost half of it).

  19. Wrong. Dead wrong.

    Your analysis conflates different parts of her analysis. Her second paragraph points out the problem with “reintroducing natural predators.” It’s completely valid.

    Re-read the first part. It says what it says, not what you think it says.

    they would rather see the return of their “natural” predators (Nazis, Communists, Fascists, crazy African warlords, and poor, misunderstood Islamofascists).

    That does NOT say:
    1. that only conservatives fight Nazis;
    2. that FDR was not a Democrat;
    3. that the US has fought African warlords during modern times;

    it merely states that those are the natural predators of mankind. Furthermore, “they” refers to “pantywaists,” not every single Democrat, Leftist, progressive, or whatever else you would like to it mean. Her definition, not yours, carries the day and is relevant. A person is allowed to be her own lexicographer with a term such as “pantywaists,” and she is not obligated to write in such a way as to please every single nutjob out there.

    You WANTED to see something wrong with what she wrote, so you nitpicked your way to a lousy analysis. If you don’t find it funny, don’t read my site. Trolling is not permitted. Neither is forcing your own warped interpretation of something upon my friend’s comments so you can score cheap points. There are interpretations of “pantywaists” under which her analysis is entirely correct. So back off and stop being a troll.

    CLEAR?

  20. #

    Bridget,

    The QoS may have been making a joke, but it was a very political one and intended just as much for a laugh as to make a political statement. Sorry if you all want to entertain ridiculous ideas about the US left for the purposes of a good snicker, but forgive me for not feeling sorry about ruining your good time when I point out how broken your humorous analogies are.

    Feel free to not read my blog if it pisses you off so much.

  21. […] Helvidius, a Pachyderm And the comment: That is so f’in hilarious. Who these pantywaists? Lemme shrink their heads real quick: they identify with the deer. Like the deer, they have been allowed to overpopulate because their natural predators have been hunted into extinction by the big, bad, unenlightened conservatives who fight and win wars. But here’s where they show their lack of fitness for survival: in their panicked fear of the “hunters” with guns (equivalent to the big, bad conservatives who are actually their protectors), they would rather see the return of their “natural” predators (Nazis, Communists, Fascists, crazy African warlords, and poor, misunderstood Islamofascists). […]

  22. Yeah. I remember writing that and it was definitely in the spirit of a loose analogy, and very much a snap-fest, humorous kind of thing. I would never call FDR a pantywaist, but our current Democrat leadership definitely fits the bill. People need to take a valium or get a life or something. It’s blogging.

    And Eric, if nit-picking is in the dictionary, there should be a big picture of you next to it. Lighten up, for heaven’s sake. You’re starting to remind me of those obnoxious law students who turn every single tiny word and action in life into a grudge match, which is a loser’s game. Everything is a game of GOTCHA! with folks like that. I don’t think you’re one of those people, but you’re kind of acting like one. None of us are your enemies. Chill, man.

  23. “they” refers to “pantywaists,” not every single Democrat, Leftist, progressive, or whatever else you would like to it mean. Her definition, not yours, carries the day and is relevant.

    “Pantywaists” is clearly linked to the term “liberals.” In the first paragraph that QoS writes, the pantywaists are the ones who want to see the natural predators return. In the second paragraph, it is the liberals. And in the first paragraph as well, these “pantywaists” are contrasted against conservatives. If all she mentioned were “pantywaists” then it wouldn’t be political. But she explicitly chose to make it political by situating her joke within the liberal/conservative binary. I didn’t impose any type of “warped” interpretation on this.

    Regardless, point taken. In the future I will abstain from challenging the political underpinnings of the humor on this blog.

  24. Regardless, point taken. In the future I will abstain from challenging the political underpinnings of the humor on this blog.

    You missed the point. Try applying that principle to LIFE. Consider this: if, after bickering with you for three days straight (including citations of facts, footnotes, and a freakin grammar/style analysis to determine the exact meaning of “pansy”), it was determined that Queen of Swords is correct, would it still be funny?

    Likwise, if, after exhaustive analysis, it was determined that you were correct, would you feel as if a major victory for truth had been scored?

    In either situation, there is no winner. There is no outcome from arguing with you that would really improve either of our situations. When there is no real point to the back-and-forth, with no resulting gain, the point of the back-and-forth is NITPICKING.

    Pansywaists is clearly linked ot the term “liberals.”

    I don’t feel like publishing a discourse on statutory interpretation, so suffice to say, you are WRONG. The short version is that the two PARAGRAPHS are, structurally, PARAGRAPHS, and therefore, not on the same subject. I believe that “stepping out of the metaphor for a moment,” followed by an explanation of the absurdity of the proposed solution. One paragraph dealt with “pansywaists” and their ignorant pacifism; the other dealt with the absurdity of the solution in question. That one person may apply to both groups does not mean that there is complete overlap between both groups (i.e. that they are interchangeable).

    Someone can correct me on this one, but the fact that two different words were used in two different paragraphs, relating to two very different subjects, does not mean that the two words are equivalent. Generally, it actually means the OPPOSITE: that there is some distinction to be drawn between the two terms (not that they are antonyms, just that they are not completely interchangeable).

    As I said, that interpretation is objectively WRONG.

    (I cannot believe that I’m forced to discourse about grammatical interpretation for a freakin joke. Apply your brains to something besdies “gotcha!” and you’ll enrich all of our lives.)

    If you choose to go to law school, send an apology after 1L year – because you are WRONG.

  25. I believe that “stepping out of the metaphor for a moment,” followed by an explanation of the absurdity of the proposed solution.

    Should read: I believe that “stepping out of the metaphor for a moment,” followed by an explanation of the absurdity of the proposed solution, indicates a fundamental break with the subject of the preceding paragraph.

  26. I can’t believe I’m doing this…

    http://www.godonthe.net/evidence/intrpret.htm
    Principles of textual interpretation. Among them, “words have their usual meaning.”

  27. Good link. Many people forget those basic principles. My wife (5 yrs. teaching 4th grade English, now moving to be a librarian) reminds me that most basic reading principles (consider the context, etc.) apply to regular reading and Bible reading.

    I was glad to see this one, especially for the latter part: The author is reasonably intelligent. He is neither a genius nor an idiot.

  28. This is crazy. Here, one last attempt:

    “Who these pantywaists?”

    “Pantywaists” refers to the author of the op-ed who wants to reintroduce natural predators.

    In the second paragraph, the word “liberals” is used to refer to the people who want to reintroduce natural predators.

    The words are clearly used interchangeably.

  29. The words are clearly used interchangeably.

    No, they aren’t. Even if they were, who cares?

    Please – acquire thyself a sense of humour. While I am patently against sexism, I am still capable of ignoring a sexist joke that others find to be amusing that does not suit my view of the world. I need not give a full dissertation on the origins of each word therein, how they are harmful for our current society, and the pernicious effects of such humour.

    If you insist on being a prat and fighting this, please explain why “painsywaist” should not have its usual meaning. Such is a principle of textual interpretation.

  30. I should add: As “words have their usual meaning” is a bedrock foundation of textual interpretation, there is nothing you can say to so alter that. It does not matter if you say that each paragraph refers to the same subject – because words have their usual meaning.

    Textual interpretation isn’t something you make up to suit your own agenda; we are talking about the linguistic equivalent of the laws of thermodynamics. Ignore at your own peril.

    Your comment (#28) doesn’t even prove what you want it to prove. You have not determined that one word is a subset of another (i.e. that all pansywaists are liberals but not all liberals are pansywaists) or that the words partially overlap (i.e. that some pansywaists are liberals, but not all of either are the other).

    As you are the one positing that the Queen of Swords meant such, it is your job to prove that either situation in the above paragraph is inaccurate. “[C]learly” is, well, clearly not the case.

  31. Perhaps the words are not used interchangeably. However, I do believe I am justified in interpreting the “pantywaists” as liberals, even if that is not calling all liberals pantywaists.

    How does the contrast against “conservatives” make any sense if the group being contrasted is not “liberals”? Could we say “firemen, unlike conservatives”? Or “movie-goers, unlike conservatives”? That makes no sense. Comparisons must be logical. Even if you wrote “environmentalists, unlike conservatives,” that still wouldn’t make sense. Although most environmentalists are not conservatives, they still belong to a group that uses different criteria than that which is used to define “conservatives.” The College Board’s SAT grammar supports what I am saying here (yes, I taught SAT classes).

    So, given that pantywaists and liberals are the ones who want to reintroduce natural predators, and given that pantywaists are contrasted against “conservatives,” I feel justified in applying this rule of textual interpretation:

    “The reader can draw reasonable inferences from the text and known information”

    to conclude that the pantywaists are liberals (even if all liberals are not pantywaists). Therefore, my initial comment still applies. The conservatives (“hunters”) have actually been less successful in fighting the enemies (“natural predators”) that QoS named.

    I don’t think you are right when you claim that the second paragraph “dealt with the absurdity of the solution in question.” Although QoS does say that she is stepping outside of the metaphor, she seems to step back into it by using the ridiculous solution proposed by the author of the letter as an example of all solutions proposed by liberals:

    That’s the problem with “solutions” offered by liberals

    She doesn’t say “that’s the problem with this solution,” but rather uses the problem with this solution to generalize about all solutions offered by liberals. Perhaps this goes beyond the bounds of the guidelines you offered, but I think this points directly back to the poor “solutions” being offered by the “panytwaists” in the previous paragraph:

    in their panicked fear of the “hunters” with guns (equivalent to the big, bad conservatives who are actually their protectors), they would rather see the return of their “natural” predators.

    It is precisely the addition of these poor “solutions” from the first paragraph that allow the QoS to use the plural “solutions” in the final paragraph.

    In that case, the words “pantywaist” and “liberal” are being used interchangeably.

  32. The College Board’s SAT grammar supports what I am saying here (yes, I taught SAT classes).

    I’ve taught LSAT and GMAT. I’ve also taken ancient Greek, which is quite good for teaching grammar.

    In short – what’s your point?

    by the big, bad, unenlightened conservatives who fight and win wars

    As they say – continue reading. We are contrasting “big, bad, unenlightened conservatives who fight and win wars” with “pansywaists.” Sorry – she limited that with which she contrasted “pansywaists.”

    Apropos of nothing, why are you still bitching about this?

  33. I don’t think you are right when you claim that the second paragraph “dealt with the absurdity of the solution in question.”

    Well, then you need to stop teaching the SAT and start learning to read properly. I’m not sure what does anyone know what has happened where the natural predators of deer (i.e., mountain lions and wolves) have been allowed to breed unmolested? Anyone? Anyone? Thaaaaat’s right! They’ve started attacking and mauling/killing humans in those areas, correctly identifying them as easy prey is meant to do, if not to satirise the solution in question.

    Really, I have better things to do with my time than to explain some pretty basic shit to people. This is absurd.

  34. yes, that last paragraph deals with the solution to the deer problem. but you ignore the fact that it refers to “solutions” in general, as if the deer solution was just one of many stupid solutions proposed by liberals. the plural of “solutions,” points back to the stupidity of the pantywaists, thereby linking the liberals to the pantywaists.

    hey, you’re still bitching about it too.

    this is absurd, i agree.

  35. 1. It’s my blog. I get the last word. That’s just a rule.

    2. If it’s absurd, why did you start it? Why are you all of a sudden complaining about the logical consequences of your actions?

  36. Eric,

    I moderated your comment because it failed to address that point and that question.

    I have ZERO desire to argue this with you. Until you can acknowledge:
    1) reasonable minds may differ;
    2) one reasonable mind runs this blog; and
    3) said reasonable mind has zero desire to argue this point and, as such, has every right to ask you to stop arguing over something inconsequential;

    your comments here will continue to be moderated.

    I want to have an open comment policy. I enjoy disagreement. Frankly, though, this sucks. I can’t get all worked up over this. There are very legitimate counterpoints to your theories, but I don’t have the energy to deal with it. There is no joy in this debate, as there is no POINT to it, except for you to say, “Gotcha! Ha, ha, I’m better than you are!”

  37. […] are males.  For more on the subject, read this.  Or check out this other term: “For environmental balance pick up a rifle” liberals […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: