#DZDA Episode 9 — Obama Shuffle, Ron Paul’s Rise (and Libertarian Fallacies), and Orson Scott Card’s Gay Hate

It’s time for some more Duke and Zink, mouths and all.  On Today’s Agenda:  the Obama Campaign etch-a-sketches Biden on Marriage Equality, Ron Paul can’t win, but he can be a pain in the ass, Orson Scott Card on beating the gays in North Carolina, and other random stuff we feel like talking about.

Note:  We are sticking with the new format.  Please let us know what you think!

Listen away!  Feel free to leave a comment and spread the word if you are so inclined!

Here’s the episode (show notes are below):
Episode 9 — Download (MP3)

Or, how to give old people heart attacks…

Intro and the Key Elements (0:00 – 44:34)

The Funnies (44:35 – 50:35)
–Jen:  “Republicans, Get in My Vagina!” by Funny or Die (sorry, you’ll have to go to the link to watch)
That’s all, folks!  Thanks for listening.  See you next week.

5 thoughts on “#DZDA Episode 9 — Obama Shuffle, Ron Paul’s Rise (and Libertarian Fallacies), and Orson Scott Card’s Gay Hate

  1. Pingback: It’s About Damn Time « Duke and Zink Do America

    • I’m going to be completely honesty. I was interested in the book right up until Smith says this on the page to the graphic novel:
      “[My book] also persuaded an even bigger number of folks to go out and buy their first firearm, something I’m just as proud of and delight in reporting to liberals and neocons who’d rather see a woman raped in an alley and strangled with her own pantyhose than see her witha gun in her hand.”

      Not only is this an absurd mis-characterization of the liberal message about gun ownership, but it directly contradicts his assertion that his libertarian view is one that, if adopted universally, would result in a magic utopia with less division and more peace and happiness. The idea that guns deter people from committing violent crimes is as stupid as the idea that the death penalty does the same thing. It doesn’t.

      But that doesn’t mean that liberals necessarily want to prevent that woman from carrying a gun. Some liberals are like that, but they’re extreme even for liberals. I’m not against gun ownership. I just think such ownership should be regulated to make sure the people who own guns understand how to use them properly. I’m not one of those people who thinks we should have a completely gun free society, such as the United Kingdom. They like to say that’s why they have fewer murders, but the truth is that having no guns in the general populace doesn’t reduce the murder rate: educating people and teaching people to respect guns as deadly weapons, and preventing crazy people from having them, reduces the number of homicides involving guns. Just look at Canada. Very low gun-based homicides despite the country having an enormous number of guns (lots of hunters up there). And yet Canadians have restrictive gun laws too. Things are generally a-OK up there and police abuse is far less than in the states, where our police are heavily militarized against a public that has no way to defend itself against military-grade weaponry and devices.

      So this idea that liberals want a woman to be raped because we don’t want her to have a gun is false on two levels. We have no problem with her owning a gun, unless she’s a danger to people are incapable of handling that weapon properly. And we want to do more to protect people from rapists, which doesn’t begin with arming citizens, but with finding more effective methods to find questionable behavior and treat it ahead of time.

      I just find these kind of mythical understandings of liberals to be idiotic and illustrative of a person who has shut off their brain to thinking. Jen and I are no fan of the Republican party, but we’ll admit that there are people within it we like (both Jen and I quite like Jon Huntsman, even if we don’t agree with him on everything). And Republicans do sometimes have really good ideas. They’re not bogeymen…

      Meh.

  2. Oh and to explain Orson Scott Card (but definitely *not* agree)

    Tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality officially would deny Card and members of certain religions the religious freedom to discriminate and abjure homosexuals. Its a confict between social liberties for homosexuals, and the religious liberty to label them as immoral.

  3. … Yes, I can see how it would be very difficult to both discriminate against and tolerate at the same time. Those poor people! :P

    I have not read The Probability Broach, but it sounds like a pipe-dream that ignores some basic tenets of humanity, not unlike Communism. I’m not sure why Libertarians haven’t figured out that every system needs to exist in balance with no extreme positions… Maybe some day.

    Book looks interesting though! And there’s a free pdf of the graphic novel. So no excuse not to check it out now :P

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