More tu quoque in the news. This time, again, perhaps for the nth time, Michelle Obama, advocate of healthy eating. This from Talking Points Memo:
Dr. Keith Ablow, a member of something called the Fox News Medical A-Team, doesn’t think First Lady Michelle Obama has any business promoting childhood nutrition.
“And how well can she be eating? She needs to drop a few,” Ablow said during Tuesday’s episode of “Outnumbered.”
The comment drew a collective cringe from the same four female panelists who had called the first lady “annoying” for her health initiatives only seconds earlier.
Despite the ridicule from his fellow panelists, the show’s “one lucky guy” dug in.
“Well, no, let’s be honest. There’s no french fries happening? That’s all kale and carrots? I don’t buy it,” Ablow said, adding that he would welcome nutrition advice from President Obama.
This guy makes my job too easy. By the way, this is my job.
In tu quoque news today:
“Obama has decimated the friggin’ constitution, so I don’t give a damn,” the Helmetta cop says on camera. “Because if he doesn’t follow the Constitution we don’t have to.”
Reminds me of this:
via Gin and Tacos, Reddit, etc.
We’ve been busy sorting our stuff out after a huge move–and it’s all still in boxes. In the meantime, as we get back up to speed here, please consider this piece in Slate about the general terribleness of arguments against marriage equality, etc.
The answer, it turns out, is that there are none—none, at least, that aren’t driven by animus. A review of the failed attempts here is instructive. At various points, conservatives argued that every child deserves a mom and a dad; that gay people simply make inferior parents; that marriage isn’t marriage without penile-vaginal penetration; that legalizing gay marriage would lower birth rates; and, best of all, that somehow, allowing gay people to get married would cause more straightpeople to have children out of wedlock.
We’ve talked about this topic quite a lot here. In fact, of all topics, it seems to have produced the most commentary.
Perhaps it’s time, as the author suggests (and I think as Colin had argued here a long time ago), to consider this argument over.