Rear Window Ethics Rear Window Ethics: Rant

Tuesday, November 09, 2004 Rant

Wow. I just read a very angry person's rant HERE, which I presume was brought on by the results of the election last week. There's no specific reference to the source of the tirade, but it seems fairly obvious to me that it is based on the events of Nov. 4. It's a pretty crass diatribe, and was obviously written in a moment of frenzied rage, but if it is possible to look beyond the hatred found in the domain name ( and pick up some of its talking points in a more civil manner, than that's what I'll attempt to do here.

If you look past the overt, angry emotion of the essay, it boils down to a rebuttal of three baseless conservative arguments used by some equally extreme viewpoints: That southern, 'red' states are more 'real' and more 'patriotic', that federal taxes take money that should be left the pockets of 'real' Americans, and that all this talk about the Evangelical 'morality vote' is self-righteous and hypocritical.

The arguments, stripped of their anger and patronizing tone follow:

1) Red states are no more patriotic than blue states. 9 of the original 13 colonies were in the Northeast. The history of this democracy lies in the Northeast, as do the vast majority of monuments paying tribute to America's revolutionary struggle in the 18th century. (Fairly pointless, weak argument).

2) Arrogance is a deeply American trait. Perhaps blue states are so arrogant because it is their Federal taxes that pay for spending in red states. The spending per dollar of taxes paid funnel out of blue state cities and into red states. Don't complain about taxes when it is someone else's dollars that pay for your spending. (Interesting point).

3) The concept of 'moral values' is a misnomer, myopic, and hypocritical. The frenzy and outrage over gay marriage in fundamental Christianity is preposterous because Massachusetts, the only state in the Union with legalized gay marriage, has the lowest divorce rate in the nation. The Bible Belt, on the other hand, has the highest divorce rate. Perhaps the concept of 'destroying' the institution of marriage is not fairly considered when leveling that charge at gay couples. (Valid comparison).

Before I am inundated with harsh criticism, I would like to stress the fact that I do not agree with's belligerent tactics or garbled, bitter message. I do, however, think that within the site's rant there are interesting talking points for those of us who feel more comfortable with discussion over blind, partisan, country-dividing rage.

For the full, original text of, click here.