Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has made a rather embarrassing series of press releases the past two days. Apparently, he has taken both a pro- AND anti-Medicare stance.
Media Matters for America first reported this story this morning.
On December 6th, Mitch McConnell was the defender of Medicare and seniors against the onslaught of the Democratic chopping block.
However, the very next day, his conservative animosity toward government programs takes over and he is attacking the government program as a financial disaster.
It's enough to make you wonder what exactly his goal is. My analysis is that he's attempting to have his cake and eat it too. he wants the democrats to do nothing to reinforce good policies so that he can continue to destroy our country when the republicans eventually re-take power through a campaign of fear and lies. Republicans want power so they can have power, Democrats actually want to do something for people. who would you want in power?
I have found this wonderful website called "Evidence for God in Science." It's filled with the usual horse poop that one would expect from a website attempting to prove that God exists.
Here is an interesting problem that truly exemplifies the authors attempt to refute a definition he made up. The auther attempts to provide a three step process that provides answers for atheists. The problem is that he bases his argument on incorrect interpretations of what atheists actually believe.
He claims that atheists believe:
1) that all beliefs must be supported by observable evidence
2) that beliefs that contradict observable evidence cannot be tolerated
Talk about an over-simplified interpretation. Beliefs don't need to be based on observable evidence, they need to be based on provable evidence supported by process of observation or appropriate theoretically supported speculation. and when contradicted, yes, the theories must immediately be revisited and revised (not necessarily thrown out).
The author uses the example of the Big Bang. He argues that since the universe has a beginning, atheists have no answer for what came before because it is unobservable. Here, the author betrays his own bias, which is that he is overeager to give God credit for the unobservable. The critical misinterpretation here is that atheists believe all things are observable and that religious people believe that all unobservable things must be God. Both are seriously flawed because there are many things we cannot observe, but that we know exist. For instance we know "dark matter" exists, but we can't see it. We know that light exists as both a particle and a wave, but we cant necessarily explain it. And just because I can't explain it or that scientists can't explain it, doesn't mean that there is no explanation. It just means we haven't found it yet. This is the fundamental self-centeredness of the religious mind, to believe that anything YOU don't understand cannot be understood.
Further on the big bang question is the notion that anything with a beginning cannot be infinite and thus must have had a creator. This is not true because I have a beginning, but the molecules that make up my being are as old as time itself. There are a number of theories (conveniently omitted from the authors argument) that claim the universe expands and contract on a cycle, meaning that it could in fact have existed for eternity, and the big bang was simply one of many expansions. There is also the theory of multiverses, where our universe is one of many some older, some younger. it shows a serious lack of imagination and a pretty substantial self-centeredness to assume that the currently (and perhaps permanently) unexplainable through human observation can only be explained by God.
After having ranted about this last night, I decided to dig a little and see what people were saying about this.
Richard Dawkins in writtings and in his book, The God Delusion, argues that it is a form of child abuse and his argument is persuasive. He reasons that because the teaching of religion is steeped in guilt, fear of real and perceived violence perpetrated against the individual (Hell), and threats of violence or harassment against those who question or believe differently, this type of indoctrination is tantamount to child abuse. To turn it around, wouldn't you have a problem with a parent who used beatings or fear of beatings as a means of disciplining their children? Couldn't it be child abuse to say "if you disobey your father, the government (representing God in this example) is going to throw you in jail where inmates (demons) will torture you for eternity?" As a society, would we not be appalled by a government that made this threat? so why aren't we equally appalled when religions do it?
Lets deal with reality for a moment. Religions are used to do horrible things. Almost every single war throughout history has been predicated by religion or supported by religious means. Even in those wars that people traditionally believe are based on nationalism (World War II) or economic theory (Cold War), leaders used religion as the mechanism for garnering public support for their efforts. In World War II, Hitler, a life long Christian, used religious language in his campaign to exterminate the jewish people, telling supporters that the jews killed the savior. In the Cold War, politicians in the United States used the national atheism of the Soviet Union to connect atheism to communism, and used that to push a religious agenda including the decision in the 1950s to add "under god" to the pledge of allegiance. Had the national character been based on intelligence and critical thought, it would not have been as easy to get support for such incredibly horrible atrocities as the extermination of the jews and McCarthyism.
These examples, along with the crusades, the recent rape cases, and the use of religion to subjugate minorities, women, and LGBT people, are extreme examples, so why is religion in moderation bad? Not all religious people are going to end up like Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps, right? Right, but the religious mainstream is what supports religious extremists. Without a strong foundation of silent religious indoctrination corrupting the minds of millions of Americans, Pat Robertson wouldn't exist. It is precisely because religious people have been indoctrinated that they think it is acceptable to hate the sin not the sinner, but also tolerate those who hate both.
Finally, religious indoctrination stifles creativity and permanently impairs the mind. Religion, by its very nature, requires people to be ignorant, because scientific inquiry has proven so much of the bible wrong. Without a literal interpretation of the bible, many of the dogmas relied upon by the church would become invalid or irrational. So the church continues it's war proper science in a vein attempt to keep the population ignorant. Education also invites critical thinking, and a critical mind questions everything. Higher education further reinforces this critical mindset which encourages creativity, exploration, expertise, and experimentation. All of these things are recognized characteristics of effective leadership. How can a person who shuns education gain these skills? religion teaches dogmatic reliance on priests for answers to big questions. That doesn't seem to help foster creativity, etc. By the time youths are old enough to truly begin to question, they have already been indoctrinated with a virus that will sap their potential for success in life.
So is religion a from child abuse?
If you raise your children through dogmatic religious indoctrination you are instilling fear of real and perceived violence, ignorance of both original and developing knowledge, reliance on outdated forms of morality without the critical intellect to compensate in today's society, and denying your child access to necessary skills and knowledge for their survival in the world (i.e. lack of knowledge about birth control). So my answer would be YES!
Some articles attempt to refute Dawkins, but do so in illogical and, frankly, stupid ways. Rich Deem from the website "Evidence for God" argues that because religiously inclined people show lower levels of behaviors society has deemed inappropriate, their religion could not have been abusive. He makes this arguement by relying on previous research that individuals who were abused in childhood show a greater likelihood for destructive, societally rejected behavior. It's pretty plain that this individual is not very smart (as one might expect from a religious extremist). He has made a pretty substantial logical mistep. His argument depends on the assumption that since child abuse is associated with negative behaviors, a person who does not exhibit those behaviors was not abused. Any person worth his salt can figure out why this is wrong. Primarily, the problem is that the connection is not ALL. If ALL abused people exhibited certain behaviors, then he would be correct, a lack of the exhibited behavior would indicate a lack of abuse. That is not the case. Second, the author uses a limited number of behaviors to refute Dawkins. What if Religion suppresses some behaviors, but exacerbates others? For instance, religious people might be less likely to steal, but they may also more likely to lie about it, since stealing is taboo and they wouldn't want others to know about it. The results of their abuse might also appear in other behaviors, such as violence against women, self, LGBT people, etc.
Religion may be a suppressant, but it suppresses more than just the "bad behaviors," it suppresses creativity and knowledge of what is good, fair, and morally right by replacing it with a morality of ignorance and dogma. Is it abuse, YES!
Ok, so I've started to notice a trend in recent reporting. What is with the media obsession with politicians "slam"ing, "rip"ing, or "blasting" other people or organizations? the media can't come up with better verbiage than that? Here are some examples:
Perhaps CNN and Fox News can find more descriptive ways to express their ideas, instead of using words that, I can only assume, are appealing only to the ignorant, uneducated, ill informed masses who think politics is a wrestling match.
Now it's time to toot my own horn! I totally called this one. The tea baggers, so enragged by non-existant tax increases and health reform aggendas that don't effect them, have taken their fight to illegal immegration. Now this is a legitimate issue, but why do they care? What does illegal immigration have to do you "Taxed Enough Already?" the answer is absolutely nothing, and the tea bagger movement has revealed it's true colors as nothing more than a neo-con war machine powered by an uneducated, sadly misinformed lower-middle class. When did stupidity become a virtue I ask you!
Anyway, I'll hop down from my soap box long enough for you to check out this video of two Tea Baggers instigating a fight with some pro-amnesty protestors:
Pretty scary huh? This is what our public discourse has dissolved into. Civil disobedience in favor of the oppressed and unheard is greeted by violence from the angrily ignorant lower classes. This is why I'm elitist, because to be otherwise would be to legitimize this kind of behavior from the pathetically stupid.
I couldn't resist commenting on Sarah Palin week. Now here is the definition of a nutjob.
Feel free to listen to her condescension in the following clips provided by Huffington Post.
Sarah re-writes history on the Couric Interviews:
Yeah right sarah. No one buys that Katie Couric was baiting you on abortion or badgering you about reading a magazine. Even if I were pissed at someone I could manage to spit out LA Times or NY Times or Washington Post, or...ANYTHING! just spit it out. Oh and apparently she wen ton Katie's show out of pity because Katie Couric has the lowest ratings. Well what does that say about you? That even the lowest rated interviewer can still make you look like a fool. Sorry, but you might be a fool.
Sarah can't quite admit she quit the governorship because she's a coward:
What I think she is trying to say here is that she quit because she wanted her state "that she loves so much" to actually be able to function rather than being marred by ethics complaints. Thats a legitimate goals and a good reason to move on. The problem is that it's pretty clear her goal was to get out of Alaska all together and start making a name for herself on the national stage. When she says "I can effect more positive change by leaving" she is saying screw you Alaska, I'm going to washington to play with the big boys. She was too much of a coward to stand her ground as the governor and she will never be more than a icon for mockery for those of us in the lower 49.
Sarah' "holier than thou" attitude toward Levi:
Get over yourself. If anyone is "whoring" themselves out to the media it is Sarah. Levi is doing what it takes to make a living while sarah (who already had a living) is now palling around with GOP VIPs and writing books. If there is one thing I hate about religious nuts its the undeserved, condescending, "holier than thou," morally absolutist attitude that makes her think she can "pray" for him (i.e. judge him). I "pray" for you Sarah. I "pray" that your God some day helps you achieve enough sense to realize what a joke you are and stop judging other people. Or at least have the sense to shut up so the rest of us don't have to hear your whiny, low-class, quasi-moralistic snobbery. Until you've reached a level of basic intelligence that legitimizes your right to be judgmental, leave it to the professionals! like me.
So, normally I would just chalk up the Tea Bagger Movement (TBM) to a neo-con attempt at derailing the president, but it has taken on a life of it's own. That's right, somehow the extreme right neo-cons have managed to spawn something even further right than they are. The TBM (does that make it sound like an STI? hehe) has begun to border on anarchist with their plethora of anti-tax slogans, pro-Glenn Beck psychosis, and open hostility toward those who disagree with them.
I find myself asking how long it will be before they become violent? This fear is drawn from two examples from the most recent rally at the capital. First, the sign comparing health care to the holocaust. Does that mean you are planning a Tea Bagger D-Day (or T-Day, pun intended)? are you going to "liberate" the capital through the violent overthrow of the democratically elected Democratic party? Perhaps a round of Defenestration just for good measure? Second, Keith Olberman did a pretty good job of covering the hated of these people.
Well thats not entirely what I want to cover. The hateful, anti-american, anti-government, anti-responsibility protesters are now an official PARTY! The Tea Beggers are now a recognized party in the state of Florida. They are promising to run a candidate against the democrats and republicans in the next election.
Aside from this being a little nutty and sad, is it necessarily a bad thing for Democrats or even Republicans? I don't think so. For Democrats it is an opportunity to split the Republican party into two parties, and it also alienates candidates from their extremist base. For Republicans it might help to free them from the right-wing extremist who have taken over their party. So, to me it seems like a win-win situation. If anything this will just help us focus our scorn on the Tea Baggers.
P.S. It isn't live now, but the website for this group is http://www.floridateaparty.us/
There will be a lot of speculation about who lost in Saturday's major health care vote in the house. Some people will say that the republicans were handed a defeat when they were unable to stop the Health Care Reform agenda of the Nancy Pelosi and the Public Option. Others will claim that the Democrats were handed a hearty defeat because their party was split on the vote, giving the opposition the appearance of a stronger bipartisan agreement.
But in reality it was neither of these groups that lost. The real loser in Saturday's vote was women.
Even though most of their scare tactics managed to only widen the chasm between liberals and neo-cons across the country and further alienate traditional conservatives, Republicans were successful in on one issue: Abortion. Is anyone surprised? No. Once again, women are served up to the neo-cons as a sacrifice in order to get a democratic bill passed.
I'm curious, when democrats say that they are the champions of a woman's right to choose, where they planning on backing that up with action when it counts? If so, they failed miserably on Saturday, and the entire caucus should be ashamed. That is all I have to say on the matter.
Rudeness overtook the capital again today as the healthcare reform debate rages in Congress. It's interesting to track the most recent methods the republicans have used to fight the Democratic control of congress. here is a brief review:
Stage One: The Party of No - they became the "party of no." you might remember their things like "this will be Obama's Waterloo. It became clear at this point that the Republican party was committed to opposing everything the democrats did simply because it was "liberal" policy.
Stage Two: Make Shit Up - Having realized that they weren't going to win on a platform of "No" they decided, instead, we'll spread rumors and lies through the media to try and derail policy. For instance, Republicans were making "death panel" claims, prior to a bill being produced. The House version was only prepared with in the last two weeks, yet this debate as been raging for months. where did all that information come from? well of course it came from the Republicans try to sew fear, so they could oppose the bill once it arrived.
Stage Two and a Half: Get Angry - This stage is epitomized by Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst in the middle of Obama's address to both houses of Congress. When nothing you've tried works, get angry about it and yell at the President of the United States. Sadly, it worked. However, it did come with negative publicity as well, so probably not something you want to use too often.
Stage Three: Provide an Alternative - I think this stage was particularly satisfying for me and other liberals, because it proved that Republicans are, in fact, just as stupid as their policies. The republicans attempted to respond to Obama's "show me what YOU'VE got" challenge by presenting their own $61 Billion solution to the health care issue. The problem is that while they were spending a fraction of the price, they were not solving the problem Obama has identified. The Democratic plan will cover another 36 Million people (the goal of the Obama administration was to cover all 50 Million uninsured, but this is a good start, right?). The Republican plan would apparently push another 6 Million into the ranks of the uninsured. yeah, you heard that right. The media didn't really criticize them on this point, but let me repeat this point. The Republican plan would leave 6 Million MORE people uninsured. Yikes!
Stage Four: Don't Show Up - So their last strategy failed pretty miserably. So they needed something else. In true elementary school fashion, their next plan was to object to the Climate Bill, making its way through the committees, by simply not coming to work. Some call this a boycott. Well, if it was, it was pretty ineffective, because Barbara Boxer pushed right on by them and passed the bill out of committee without the Republicans even showing up.
Stage Five: Get Angry (Part 2) - Well, nothing seems to be working so this week we saw the resurgence of the get mad strategy. Michele Bachmann, neo-con nutjob extraordinaire, and her Republican colleagues sponsored a sparsely attended rally to oppose Health Care Reform. At this rally were the usual signs comparing Obama to hitler, the joker, etc. just the usual racism I suppose. What was really disturbing was the picture comparing health care reform to the holocaust. Rep. Boehner, who was standing right in front of the sign, claimed not to notice. Pretty sad. Well things got worse today when Republican members of congress shouted down the women's caucus, as they tried to make statements. Watch here:
Kinda sad that this what the political process has devolved into.
I couldn't help but comment on some of the stuff from this "rally."
I'll share just a couple of the things that went on at the GOP sponsored event.
First, it was sponsored by none other than my favorite psycho-talking, abortion obsessed, wrist slicing, Minnesota congresswoman, Michele Bachmann. As such, this was destined to be a doozy.
Second, did anybody else notice the Rep. Boehner (R-Ohio) misquote the constitution while he was apparently reading directly from it? Sorry buddy, but "we hold these truths" is some a different document that neo-cons like to quote because it says "under god." You really should figure out the different because one declares freedom, and the other sets up the government. Those are not really the same thing. And just to make this point even more ironic, there was apparently a woman holding up a sign saying "Is the Constitution another thing you haven't read?" Wasn't it Michele Bachman who said she couldn't read? and didn't Rep. Boehner just prove he had not read the constitution in a while? *sigh* it must be hard being so hypocritical.
Third, there were about 5,000 people there, not 25,000-30,000 as reported by FreedomWorks (although who is surprised that they are inflating statistics for personal gain?). Perhaps if Republicans were not so angry with education, they would have gotten enough of it to recognize that their estimate was about 5-6 times larger than the more realistic accounts. There were even some brilliant neo-cons claiming that there were "about a million" people there. WTF? thats pushing it. put who knows, I wasn't there, so lets compare some pictures and get some perspective.
When Barack Obama was Inaugurated as president there were about 1.5 million people present. Here are some pictures.
Ok, so you would expect the Anti-Health Care rally to look something like that. lets see some of those pictures.
Now, I could be completely wrong here, but that doesn't LOOK like it's anywhere near 1 million people. In fact, I don't think it even looks like ten thousand. I kinda think the 5,000 is a better estimate, don't you? oh well, it was prolly just a simple mistake, couldn't have possibly been a purposeful attempt to overstate their numbers to try and influence policy makers. That would just be unethical.
Finally, you simply can't pay for irony like this. Sometimes the universe just drop these beauties in your lap. Apparently, a man at the Anti-Health Care rally suffered a heart attack, and had to be resuscitated by government health officials. That doesn't strike anyone else as kind of awkward? A man benefits from government health care while rally against it. Rep. Boehner managed to corral that cameras away from the ironic image by reading aloud from the constitution and screwing it up. I guess something like that might be misconstrued by the media as meaningful when really that guy was just inconvenient for Republicans trying to make a point. it's almost as though they were saying "Seriously, how dare he have a heart attack right now, and if you are going to have one, could he possibly just die quickly so we can get on with our rally?" Didn't somebody say something just like that not too long ago about the republican plan?
You know, I never thought I would think Geraldo Rivera would say anything worth hearing, but you know, in this segment I kinda fond myself agreeing with some of the things he said. Clearly, his family has a history of being singled out in racial terms and so it's nice to hear him expressing that story to attempt to stop the race baiting going on in the room. I wish he had stopped short of saying that this guy got off easy because he was a muslim, but we'll give Geraldo credit for not being totally nuts today.
As for everyone else. Really? this is the first time since the US "War on Terror" began that something like this has happened. don't you think it's a little inappropriate and incendiary to claim that it part of a bigger problem? Yes, he should have been screened out when he made the more sketchy comments but you can't lump him in with a whole group of people especially in the military where the only people who would want to get into that are patriots. This is not a racial or religious issue (although I think there is an argument to be made here that religion is once again front and center in a bad way), the issue is what kind of person enters the military?
Even though I'm sure I could easily be called unpatriotic for saying this, you have to ask yourself is this indicative of a larger problem in the armed forces? We all know that the armed forces is the perfect place to go when you are in the closet and want to stay that way. It's also the perfect place for kids from the streets and troubled youths whose parents don't want to deal with them anymore. I'll admit that there is probably a fair number of true "patriots" in the military who want to do good in the world, but our military is also home to people who have serious mental problems, and we sweep that under the rug because its not PC to say so. The reason no one called this guy out wasn't the fact that he was Muslim, it was because of misdirected "hero worship" that allows the military to continue to be a safe-zone for people to avoid treatment for mental problems or suppress their own psychological battles. If we didn't want this to happen again we would double both the number of WELL TRAINED psychologists on military bases and the services we provide to service men and women. And just to be safe we would provide exceptional services for the military psychologists themselves, who probably need services even more than a normal psychologist. But that would make too much sense, so instead, we're going to take the easy road and we're going to blame Muslims. God Bless America!
In the wake of three high profile off-year races, republicans have declared the results are a referendum on the Obama administration and that "voters" are unhappy with his policies. I went on the Fox News website because all the other news sources have been relatively quiet on the whole thing. CNN followed the races on the "Ticker" and had an article on the loss of same-sex marriage in Maine, but the only article analyzing the election seemed to have mixed messages. Think Progress seems to be equally quiet, and not surprisingly when they do talk about it, they are very hostile to the concept that it had anything to do with the president. So I figured I would check out the "fair and balanced" website.
Here is what I found on the front page:
The first think you see is a laundry list of "you decide" questions that are asked in a conservative way, followed by the usual propaganda articles about how it was a referendum on the Obama administration. Their version of a fair appraisal of the election apparently comes from the Chairman of the RNC. Notice how they celebrate the GOP victories, in multiple articles, but when it comes to the defeats, they talk about lessons learned. Heaven forbid the "fair and balanced" news channel should celebrate the democratic victory in NY 23, where the conservative candidate was supposed to win. Why not analyze how the GOP civil war may have damaged the candidate in a district that has been conservative since the actual civil war? That might shine an unwanted negative light on the GOP, so we can't have that now can we?
The second thing I noticed was the two elections that were prominently posted on the front page of the Fox News website. They only posted the elections where Republican candidates won. Again, where is NY 23? wasn't that supposed to be a victory for conservative values because the conservative candidate beat out the republican candidate? or do they not want to talk about the fact that Hoffman's extreme conservatism and scorched earth tactics against the GOP candidate might have cost him the race in a heavily Republican district? Either way, the gloating continues.
Finally, I went to the bottom and checked to see what the Anchors were talking about, and who they were talking to. here is a break down:
Hannity is talking to two Republican Congressman (Cantor and Allen) about Democratic Liberal Extremism.
Greta is talking to a Republican Congressman (Shultz) about how these two elections area forecast of 2010.
Bret Baier is talking to Brit Hume (Fox News Anchor) about how health care isn't going to become law.
Neil Cavuto is talking to former republican speaker of the house Dennis Hastert about how Health Care reform will break the bank.
O'Reilly is taking a swipe at the New York Times
Glenn Beck is talking to Al Gore (The only liberal) about eating meat...
So basically, 5 of the 6 anchors are talking to neo-cons about Republican talking points. The only one who isn't is talking to Al Gore about eating meat. Sounds fair and balanced to me! hahaha. what a joke!
Here's the truth. Corzine was a screw up, who deserved to lose, and it fits with the pattern in New Jersey of electing governors of a different party than the president. Deeds was a weak candidate in a conservative area, he was going to get killed and we all knew it. So really, the republicans beat two weak democratic candidates, and got beat in their own back yard by a democrat. Is that really a win for them? and if it is, is that REALLY a referendum on the president. There is spin and then there is outright misrepresentation of the truth. The Republicans are flirting with that line on this one.
I was reading an article this morning in which I was informed that the Republicans won the two high profile governors races because people were worried about the direction the economy is going. I was so shocked I nearly spit out my coffee, because if that is true, I may have lost all faith in people's intellectual ability. Let me break it down for you.
1) REPUBLICANS GOT US INTO THIS MESS! so why on earth would you vote them BACK into office? Obama is trying to fix the mess Bush/Reagan made and he's doing it a whole lot faster than anything thought. Are people really so stupid as to think that the republicans wont go right back to destroying or economy with their borrow, spend, oppress, make war mentality?
2) Where exactly is the economy going? lets look at some statistics: Job Lost by Month:
August 08: 175,000
September 08: 321,000
October 08: 380,000
November 08: 597,000
December 08: 681,000
January 09: 741,000
February 09: 681,000
March 09: 652,00
April 09: 519,000
May 09: 303,000
June 09: 463,000
July 09: 304,000
August 09: 201,000
September 09: 263,000
October 09: 203,000
In the graph provided please notice how the numbers have dropped significantly and consistently since Obama took office (Red). Also notice how the trend (or average change) is slopping downward (Yellow). Now granted this is a very basic analysis, but still, why are people so afraid. Things seem to be going in the right direction.
This should all be taken in addition to other indictors which have been showing growth for the first time since the beginning of the recession in 2007.
So Republicans are celebrating because people are scared shitless for no reason, and incorrectly perceive a bigger problem than exists in actuality. How sad.
Moral of the story: People are wrong, the economy is moving the right direction, things are looking up, and if you are going to blame someone stop blaming the guy with the mop and start blaming the guy who made the mess.
Both sides of the maine same-sex marriage battle have released Ads before election day.
The Good Guys:
The Bad Guys:
So, why is it so bad that there be gay people and issues in schools? we're actually quite nice =). Not to mention that the majority of people actually support having gay issues taught in schools. Here's hoping Maine makes the right choice. Keep your fingers crossed!
I don't think I even need to say anything about how ridiculous this is.
However, one thing I do want to point out is the Minority Leader's reaction, which was that everyone is entitled to their opinion. Apparently that only counts if you are a Republican because I seem to remember him throwing a colossal temper tantrum when Rep. Grayson said the GOP plan was tantamount to "if you get sick, die quickly." gotta love the hypocrisy of some people.
"7 Things I Wish Pro-Gay People Would Admit"
By Bob Davies
*Amusing commentary provided by yours truely. =)
1. I wish they would admit that some gay people are not happy with their homosexuality or lesbianism.
This is one of those situations where you throw the rock then get mad at the person for bleeding. People are not happy with their homosexuality or lesbianism because there are large and very powerful elements of society making us misserable! A perfect example is religion. Stop for a moment and think about a world without homophobia or religion. Do you still think gay people would feel bad about their sexuality? No, of course not, because we wouldn't have people telling us it's bad. So yes, despite what you say, it IS "internalized homophobia," because gay people are feeling guilty for something that they shouldn't feel guilty about. So society has thrown the stone at us, and now you are surprised we are unhappy? that doesn't make a lot of sense.
2. Gay people can experience change over time that is genuine even if it isn't complete.
I feel like this is more a "Pro-Gay" talking point than an "Ex-Gay" one (Side note, what does it mean to be "pro-gay?" are they going for pro-equality? pro-equal treatment? supportive?). I tend to agree that sexuality is fluid, but remember that sexual orientation as an element of sexuality can be either fluid or rigid depending on chemistry. What's fluid is identity and behavior. you don't suddenly become more or less attracted to men or women, you just become more or less conscious of it and willing to embrace it. So our understanding of our orientation changes, but orientation itself is an unchanging biological reality. I'm not a biologist, but I'm pretty well versed in psychological research on Sexual Orientation, and even the old research from the 60s, 70s, and 80s recognizes orientation as unchanging. Isn't it time there people caught up?
3. Some people are happier and more satisfied having left the gay lifestyle.
Well, duh! people aren't hating on you, society is more accepting, and you get the added bonus of being able to hate on all those people who you used to identify with. of course you are happier. But that doesn't mean you are healthier. I think of it as the man who always goes to McDonald's. Is he happy gorging himself on the delicious food? Yes. Is he practicing a healthy lifestyle? No, of course not. Eventually you will pay the price for eating all that bad food. for "Ex-Gays" the price will be that they will once day experience such psychological damange from the build up of repression that they will be miserable or worse they will die having never accepted who they are. Short term "gains" at best.
4. Many former gays and lesbians have found joy and fullfilment in heterosexual marriages.
Oye. I'm not going to assume I know what is going on in these marriages, but I think the reality seems to be that these marriages are not as happy as these people would like to think. Many marriages fall apart because of people suppressing their sexuality, and those that don't can probably attribute their success to unhealthy suppression by outside sources such as religiosity or family. My other problem with this is that the population they are surveying to find all this out has an overwhelming vested interest in affirming their view because they are trying to stay in the closet. So, of course they are going to say they are happy.
5. A) People have the right to puruse the heterosexual lifestyle B) There is violence against "Ex-Gays"
I agree, in fact, I agree whole heartedly. Everyone has the right to choose their lifestyle without interference from others. If a person chooses to reject their sexual orientation in favor of a more accepted lifestyle, that is their choice. However, the reverse is true too. People have the right to identify as gay and that should be acceptable as well. The 7th point in this list seems to suggest you want recognition, but you aren't willing to give it out. Hypocrite much?
As for the violence. This is a joke. It's like comparing a a car bomb to the holocaust. The motivation, intensity and frequency are vastly different. First, the motivation of a person fighting back against an Ex-Gay is defensive. Ex-Gays are attempting to undermine the credibility of an entire community and standing in the way of full equality under the law. The motivation of someone bashing a gay person is pure oppression. In a sense an "Ex-Gay", by identifying as an Ex-Gay instead of heterosexual, is engaging in the oppression of gay people. The second issue is intensity. claiming that harassment and verbal abuse is tantamount to the physical and emotion violence experienced by the gay community is disengenuous at best, and down right criminal at worst. A gay person who drives by your house calling you a bigot is not the same as a gay person being tied to a fence post, beaten, and left for dead. That kind of thing also has a secondary ripple effect, making all gay people fear for their safety. You can't argue that these are the same. Finally, the issue of frequency should be addressed. How frequently does the minority oppress the majority? never. because gay people are fight against people who want to oppress them, and ex-gays are in that group. when violence against these people does occur it is usually because of some huge oppressive action (like Prop 8, although those protests were mostly peaceful albeit angry). So, no "violence" against Ex-Gays is an attempt to create a false victimization surrounding this group in the hopes of garnering support for their oppresive mission.
6. Leaving homosexuality isn't hatred or bigotry
It doesn't have to be. It could be one of the things I've mentioned before, where you are a bisexual or heterosexual who is simply maturing into their sexuality. But most of the time, yes, it is the result of bigotry and hatred. Don't even try to lie about that.
7. I wish pro-gay religious leaders would admit that their endorsement and promotion of monogamous homosexual relationships is a facade. Many--probably most--men and women involved in long-term partnerships are not sexually monogamous, but gay churches don't discipline members for committing "adultery" outside their "gay marriage." Neither do they discipline gays or lesbians who have sex before entering into a "holy union" with their partner.
See this is where their entire arguement falls apart. If I were readaing 1-6 I might be convinced to feel some level of pity for these Ex-Gays, but in #7 they go on the offensive hard. Talk about a broad assumption here. You talk about not being the oppressor, yet here you are spreaading lies and falshoods about the people in our community. some of us do not value monogomous relationships because our community is different and more accepting of sexual exploration, but to say MOST are not monogomous is a stretch for which there is ZERO proof. And yes, people in the gay community who commit adultary are chastized just as much, if not more, than men in heterosexual relationships. Women are not as mean as gays, so you can imagine what would happen if a guy cheats on his boyfriend. They don't get forgiven.
That was a fun exercise. Hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it. Nothing like roasting the Ex-Gays to make you feel good about life.
Oh boy, here's a fun article written by Charles LiMandri (pictured left) from National Organization for Marriage. Before reading please take a moment to enjoy the flowery, over-the-top title.
How do these guys get their Law Degrees? Please take a moment to reflect on how he quotes a number of different people, but then doesn't really talk about why what they say is bad. I would assume he doesn't because he doesn't think he has to. Based on the simple-minded reliosity of his likely readers I'm guessing they don't need an explanation. For the rest of us, he is basically saying we should continue heterosexual indocrination, because he claims (but provides no justification) that it works...
I think it is somewhat amusing that the author quotes a person who debunks the "heterosexual indocrination" argument, and then goes on to endorse it as though he did not realize the person he quoted had debunked it.
Lets move beyond the whining about Obama actually doing something about discrimination in this country and get to the whole "extremist" argument he promotes. Is Obama extremist? Is he out of touch with the average person? THIS is a legitimate question and one which is worth exploring.
Here are some statistics:
Should homosexuality be accepted by society?
United States: Yes: 49%, No: 41% (Pew Global Attitudes Project)
Here's a couple things you can take away from this:
1) Obama is not only NOT extremist, he is actually in the majority
2) Charles LiMandri's view seems to be in the minority. If he would like to live in a place where Obama would be extremist he should move to Pelestinian Territories (Yes 9%, No 58%), Kuwait (Yes 6%, No 85%), Jordan (Yes 6%, No 89%), Egypt (1%, 95%), of an African nation.
Here is another study by the Kaiser Family Foundation:
Of the general population (presumably heterosexual):
88% would accept a gay or lesbian family member or friend
88% believe that society should not restrict sexual activity between consenting adults
78% would be comfortable working with someone who is gay
76% support employment non-discrimination policies
74% support housing non-discrimination policies
73% support the inclusion of gays and lesbians in Hate Crime Legislation!
73% believe same sex partners should have inheritance rights
71% would send their children to a high school with a gay or lesbian teacher
70% believe same sex partners should have employer provided health insurance
68% believe same sex partners should have social security benefits
68% of youth believe that sexual orientation should be included in sex ed (61% of seniors)
68% of youth support same-sex unions (Yes 47%, No 46% in the general population)
66% believe that homosexual behavior is normal
61% would send their children to an elementary school with a gay or lesbian teacher
60% of youth support same sex marriage (39% in the general population)
60% would see a gay or lesbian doctor
58% would vote for a gay or lesbian political candidate
56% believe gays and lesbians should be able to serve openly in the military
56% believe that gay couples can be good parents
55% of youth support adoption by gay and lesbian parents (46% in the general population)
47% support legal unions (42% oppose)
here is an interesting statistic I want to point out. 66% of people believe that homosexuality is natural, but 51% believe it is immoral. Which means there are people out there who truly believe a natural act is immoral... isn't the whole point of that natural law mentality that all those things that are natural are moral. or from the religious view, if god made something natural, than he wouldn't have made it immoral? it astounds me how rediculous people are sometimes.
so, based on all this information who is really out of touch and extremist? I think you know my answer to that question.
Here is a cool little image I found on mypsace while I was approving some stuff for work. I really enjoyed it so I figured I would repost it here. Enjoy!
It's always fun to listen to the paranoid, fatalistic rantings of religious extremsists in America. Here is a particularly fun one by a personal favorite, Pat Robertson.
Robertson pulls out the usual slippery slope guns that he has used in the past claiming that protection of gay people will lead to legalization of pedophilia, beastiality, blah, blah, blah. I've already addressed why this is stupid so I wont re-address it here.
He also claimed that the Hate Crimes bill is all about denying christians their right to hate people. well I think I've already discussed why that is also stupid (no one cares what you say, this bill protects against religious people who act upon the venomous language Robertson spits out everyday).
So, anyway, feel free to watch what he says:
I wont go any further than to say, you should seriously question your life choices if you share a religion with this guy.
Today, Think Progress, reported that a childrens book that included a girl whos parents are Lesbians was denied by Scholastic publishers. The book, "Luv Ya Bunches" was held up by the publisher because some of the language was considered questionable or offensive. The publisher suggested edits that included removing works like "geez," "crap," "sucks," and "God" (as in "oh my God"). They also requested that one of the girls' parents, who are lesbian, be changed to a heterosexual couple.
The author complied with the language change, but refused to change the parents' sexual orientation and gender, arguing that this was not offensive. The publishers the refused to publish the book, claiming that they didn't want to deal with the complaints from parents. sketchy...
Well after thousands of people complained over their refusal, they backtracked and published the book. If you are interested in knowing more than 200,000 children are raised by gay and lesbian parents. I guess they were just going off the stereotype that gays and lesbians don't raise children. oops.
Here is there most recent statement on the matter.
Today Fox News reported that the Cash 4 Clunkers program cost taxpayers $24,000 per vehicle. Interesting. Most of the comments express anger at how they are paying for this program and their money is being given to others. I decided to do a little research, but I decided in order to be fair to Fox News' limited resources and competence I would just use their numbers.
Facts:
Cash 4 Clunkers cost: $3B
Number of Taxpayers in 2008: 154M (2008 IRS Data Book, see Page 4)
Number of Car sales that benefited from C4C: 125,000 (Conservative estimate provided by Fox News)
So,
Average Cost Per Taxpayer = $3B/154M = $19.48
Average Cost Per Taxpayer Per Car = $19.48/125K = $.0001
(again note that this is a conservative estimate. For an estimate based on the total number of cars sold during the program replace 125K with 690K)
Congratulations Obama you have successfully spread the wealth by $.0001, Mao would be proud.
I had the random (and somewhat unpleasant) urge today to look up the Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) website. The first realization I came to is that their acronym is actually PFEGG, and a common sense reinterpretation of their name as Parents and Friends of Anti-Gays would make them PFAG. I'm also curious why they include "& Gays" in their title. Whether or not you think their mission is to hurt gays, it certainly isn't to help them, so it seems silly to include gays in the title. Unless you are trying to legitimize your marginalization (victimization) by associating yourself with an already marginalize group. hmm, maybe thats the explanation.
Well those things aside I wanted to address some of the things I found on the website.
Part 1: What is an Ex-Gay?
The website claims that ex-gays aren't necessarily men/women who have changed their attractions, they are simple people who have changed their orientation or lifestyle. This isn't necessarily a bad argument, since "gay" is an identify not an orientation, a person could legitimately be ex-gay, but still homosexual. The problem I have with it is that orientation is attraction.
Sexuality can be understood as some combination of three factors: Orientation, identity, and behavior. Sexual Orientation: Sexual orientation is the physical, emotional, and spiritual attraction to a certain gender or genders. If a man is attracted to men, you would say their sexual orientation is homosexuality. If the same man were instead attracted to women, you would say he is heterosexual. And if this man is attracted to both, he is bisexual. Sexual Identity: Sexual identity is the label and lifestyle a person chooses to take on. For instance, a homosexual might choose to identify as a "gay" man. If they are less comfortable with the connotations of the word "gay" they might choose the more ambiguous term "queer." Recently, queer youth have begun adopting unique words for their sexual identity such as "gaysian" for gay asians. Sexual Behavior: Sexual behavior refers to the gender with which an individuals engages in sexual intercourse. For a heterosexual, straight man, this is going to be predominantly women. However, this is where the issue of "experimentation" comes in. It is entirely possible for an individual to have sex with men but still be heterosexual and straight. This is because behavior is different from Orientation and Identity.
You may never have heard of these distinctions because society has told you that there is only one acceptable combination, so sexuality has been dubbed as heterosexual, straight men who have sex with women. Anything that diverges even slightly from this combination runs the risk of being lumped in as gay.
So, getting back to the argument by PFOX, attraction is orientation therefor what PFOX is espousing is not changing orientation, but changing identity or behavior through the suppression of all or part of orientation. This is not new. Religions have been doing this since the concept of homosexuality first came to light. not surprising that some of the major tenants of the Ex-Gay movement are tinged with religiosity.
So what is an Ex-Gay?
I can provide three explanations for the existence of Ex-Gays.
1) Ex-Gays are heterosexuals who experimented with male-male sexual intercourse and may have even identified as gay at one time for the community acceptance. After realizing that society doesn't like gays, they returned to a more societally acceptable combination. (Not a very likely explanation, but theoretically possible)
2) Ex-Gays are bisexuals who embraced their same-sex attractions, but decided to transition back to a more societally acceptable identity and behavior pattern, most likely for reasons other than healthy sexual development. Such reasons may include religious indoctrination, social stigma, or family problems. (Somewhat more likely)
3) Ex-Gays are homosexuals who have chosen a more societally acceptable identity and behavior in order to avoid the persecution and stigma associate with being "gay." This is usually associate with individual or family religiosity. (More likely)
So why don't I think there can be a healthy "Ex-Gay?" Because if you were in fact a member of either group 1 or group 2 you would not need to identify as "Ex-Gay." You would simply identify as straight. The only people who would feel the need to identify as NOT something are people who have a problem with the group they are attempting to avoid being associated with. By saying that you are Ex-Gay you are making a point of say you are NOT gay. that is very different from saying you are straight or you are gay. Those are affirmative identities in which you affirm an identity, where Ex-Gay is a negative identity in which you negate an identity.
The point is that being ex-gay is the same as being anti-gay, because you are working to reinforce the "choice" argument that has been proven to be very damaging to the emotional and psychological health and well-being of homosexual and bisexual individuals. Not only that, but PFOX serves to validate the unhealthy suppression of orientation because it mistakenly believes that orientation is akin to identity, when it is not. Orientation refers to attraction which is recognizable chemical responses to arousing stimuli which have been observed a number of times in the past. This is biological, and no one should have to prove a genetic link. Race does not have a genetic link, in fact they have proven that there is no genetic link to race. So why is sexual orientation held to a higher standard than another oppressed group.
This concludes part 1. in Part 2 I will address the "7 Things I Wish Pro-Gay People Would Admit."
Oops, someone wasn't watching that facebook feed. Apparently a proponent of the more hateful brand of neo-conservatism created this photo and put it on the RNC facebook page.
What exactly makes people think this kinda stuff is ok? I'm all about freedom of speech, but just because you CAN say something, doesn't mean you SHOULD. Stuff like this, similar to the Louisiana justice of the peace case, deserves condemnation of the highest order and strongest language. If the RNC really expects anyone to believe that they are not a racist party then they need to smack this down with the same indignation that they throw at the president everyday. or is Health Care Reform really more abhorrent to them than racism? maybe thats a question someone needs to ask them.
This photo was legitimately not on the GOP website. It was on facebook, and someone let it show up on the facebook feed on the GOP main page. However, the GOP threw a temper tantrum when the same thing happened to MoveOn.org. At least MoveOn had the good sense to apologize.
Someone should explain to Michael Steele the whole concept of "what goes around comes around."
Here's a little background for those who haven't been following the news. The Fox News channel has been engaged in an all out war with the Obama administration since day one (actually even prior to that). They have accused him of everything from socialism, to murdering old people, to condoning child rape. Now, the Obama administration is fighting back. Yet for some unknown reason people are surprised by this! In my opinion, it's about bloody time!
Here is what Fox has been doing for the past 8 months:
Doesn't sound like news to me. It sounds like slander, but who am I to judge.
P.S. can we just take a moment to appreciate how pathetic Sean Hannity is if he truly believes that Fox, Talk Radio, and the Drudge report are the only news organizations left? First of all, Talk Radio and Drudge are opinion. Second, Fox news on its best day is poorly researched reporting on conservative pet issues laced with neo-con propaganda. On it's worse days it sounds more like a bunch of howler monkeys looking for conspiracy theories (Glen Beck all the time).
Here is a pretty awesome example of a law school that is doing a great job recruiting a special population. Cardozo Law School sent me a recruitment letter from the LGBT organziations, OUTLaw, on their campus that was specifically geared toward recruiting LGBT students. Check it out:
Even though I don't plan on applying to Cardozo Law School, I am very appreciative of the effort, and maybe more schools should follow their lead. It has definitely made an impact.
I got this wonderful article in an email from a friend who uses an aggregator to gather all the emails he's interested in. It's called "The Price of Prop 8" and it talks about how those people who "protected" marriage in California by donating $100 to the Yes on 8 campaign are being targeted by same-sex marriage activitists.
They chronicle a couple dozen examples of vandalism, harrasment, and violence perpetrated against people with Yes on 8 signs, stickers, or on the donar lists. They note how dissapointed they are that the public discourse has declined so much, and that these activists should be more accepting of other opinions on this politically and religiously controversial issue.
I'm not a huge fan of this kind of "activism" (if you can really call this activism). That being said, I'm not particularly inclined to care that much whether or not these people feel intimidated. The article talks about a group called "Bash Back," and while the methods could easily be a little over the top, the concept makes sense to me. Prop 8 was nothing more than political gay bashing through a campaign intimidation, distortion, and ignorance. Just because you do it in the smug, superior manner associated with today's religious extremists, doesn't change what it is. So, you've got a bunch of prop 8 supporters who are crying because all that crap they've been subjecting us to is finally being thrown back at them. And I'm supposed to care because...?
Aside from the merits of this article being questionable at best, the support is down right rediculous. They have 112 citations. That seems legit right? Well, I went through the list and guess who they rely on for their information:
Heritage Foundation
Fox News
Alliance Defense Fund
People For the American Way (PFAW)
Christian Examiner
ProtectMarriage.com v. Bowen (Court Case)
That's an appropriate non-partisan group there right? Not even close. The majority of the citations are taken from "witness" statements from the ProtectMarriage.com case. *sigh* I guess this is the crap that passes for reliable information these days.
If you are interested in knowing who you can blame for Prop 8 (and please feel free to boycott or engage in non-violent protest against these people), please visit Californians Against Hate's Dishonor List.
Watch this and someone please tell me what his point is because it sounds to me like he is asking stupid questions just to ask them. Either that or he legitimately doesn't like volunteerism.
From what I can tell his point is that Obama is trying to force volunteerism. Because he couldn't possibly be suggesting that it is bad for the President of the United States to promote volunteerism. Well, no one is actually saying we should force volunteerism, just that it is good and we should partner with anyone who will partner with us regardless of their political persuasion.
Then I thought, wait, is he saying we have enough volunteers already? no, he couldn't be saying that, because I can't imagine someone saying that more volunteers would be a bad thing. We could always use more people doing good work. Isn't that what the church preaches too?
Then I thought, wait, is he suggesting that we should leave it to churches to promote volunteerism? well no, he couldn't be saying that because it would also seem to suggest that they are the ONLY ones who can support volunteerism. and if he believed that then he should have a problem with a LOT of other organizations in this country, not just the President.
So, I'm still a little lost as to what his point actually is, and all I get from this is that he was looking for an excuse to compare Obama to Mao, because that's what he does. He manufactures fear and ignorance to help the Republicans who own his soul (assuming he hasn't already sold it to something else in red).
Once again Glenn Beck proves why even the most radical of right-wing extremists will still distance themselves from him, because he's a little crazy.
This is actually a series of clips from the Huffington Post, but I thought it was worth reposting them here, with a little of my commentary in between. I have posted them in the same order as HuffPo and they do not correspond to the ratings
#1 Bill Hemmer Accuses Kevin Jennings of Condoning Statutory Rape:
Average Visitor Rating: Very Biased (9/10)
My Rating: "Please Check Your Facts" with a dash of "Homophobe Much?"
What happened to fact checking? I put this on my blog as soon as I found out about it and I was able to easily find support for Jennings. Not only that, I found information that debunked this whole controversy, and here is Fox News going off on how this guys is condoning rape? come on, a little fact checking please, don't just accept it because it comes from a Conservative source. Oh and did I just hear the anchor claim that it would have been different for a girl???? suddenly he's getting off easy because it was a gay student? what a B***H!!
#2 Martha MacCallum Misquotes VP Biden to Prove a Point:
Average Visitor Rating: Very Biased (9.4/10)
My Rating: "Just Plain Unethical" with a sprinkle of "Please Check Your Facts"
Here is the full VP Biden quote:
Oops, someone screwed up! It's too bad Fox News is too corrupt to fire anyone over something that stupid. Oh well, guess we'll just have to mock them instead. =)
#3 Obama Wants a European Health Care System?
Average Visitor Rating: Very Biased (9.4/10)
My Rating: "Can You Play That Tape a Little Longer?"
Since he wasn't making a statement about Obama wanting a European health care system I'm willing to let this one slide as coincidental and not underhanded subliminal propaganda (and not very good). However, if that is the case, the guy who put this together is kinda stupid.
#4 Accusations of "Reverse Racism" toward Justice Sotomayor:
Average Visitor Rating: Pretty Biased (8.4/10)
My Rating: "Can you play that tape a little longer?" with a dash of "Was that Racist?"
A Savvy move? That's what you're going to say about the motivation to appoint a latina woman?? it couldn't possibly be because she is over qualified, well educated, well regarded, and brings a wonderfully diverse background to the court? If that's not bias, I don't know what is. But lets get back to the meat, shall we. Are we noticing that the same person is asking the same question over and over? is she maybe trying to stroke the flames?
And since when is it racist to suggest that racism might still exist? Yes, a Latina woman is going to see the law differently than a white man, if for no other reason than white men, most of whom have never experienced oppression, probably see the law as a set of rules, while the Litina woman sees it as a vehicle that has been used to oppress minorities and women, and continues to be used in that fashion today. you don't think that is a pretty big difference?
#5 Fox News Uses GOP Talking Points:
Average Visitor Rating: (9.4/10)
My Rating: Two parts "Please Check Your Facts," one part "Oops!"
Wow, ok, so that sounds like legit news right? well actually, check out the date on this slide:
Would you like to know WHY that typo is there? because the copied and pasted it right out of the GOP talking points. Shouldn't people get fired for this garbage?
#6 Democrats want to dismantle PATRIOT ACT:
Average Visitor Rating: Very Biased (9.1/10)
My Rating: equal parts "Just Plain Unethical" and "Just because you say it loud and with gusto doesn't make it true."
Again, just because you yell it at the screen doesn't make it true. What is wrong with these people, is it so hard to check your facts????
#7 The "Death Book":
Average Visitor Rating: Very Biased (9.3/10)
My Rating: This isn't just normal stupid, this is "Sarah Palin" stupid
Someone please spare me this mockery of that facts. Since when is end of life counseling is a bad thing? oh yeah, since we started talking about health care and we can play on people's fears of death. Get over it people, you are going to die one day. When you do, face up to it and do it with a little dignity. I want to hear all my options when I'm close to my end, please don't deny me that option just because you are scared shitless of death.
#8 Fist Bump = Terrorist Fist Jab?
Average Visitor Rating: VERY Biased (9.5/10)
My Rating: It'll be easier for you if you play the "moron" card.
This is just so stupid that she should just claim momentary stupidity (or perhaps permanent stupidity) and move on. It's not clear from the clip whether she is using it or saying that is what others call it, but either way she never should have said it or she should have immediately clarified her words. That is unless she was trying to suggest that he might be a terrorist and if that is the case, then well done lady, well done.
#9 Math is hard for News Anchors:
Average Visitor Rating: VERY Biased (9.5/10)
My Rating: "Please Check Your Facts"
This is just depressing. These people should go check into a high school somewhere and do some serious reviewing. Click here to read two of Bush's budget requests asking for $2.9 Billion in 2007 and $3.1 Billion in 2008. Oops! someone didn't do their homework. And a quick note on why it was so expensive. Obama included the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in his budgets, Bush didn't (those were separate requests). So who really spent more?
#10 Teabagging Parties represent the American People:
Average Visitor Rating: The Most Biased of All (9.6/10)
My Rating: It doesn't get more biased than claiming 20,000 nutjobs on the mall represent the opinions of the other 300,000,000 people in the country.
Are you kidding me with this? I mean really, these people are a bunch of selfish nutjobs who think that they can get something (services, national security, representation, and a COUTRY) for nothing (not paying taxes). You do not get much stupider than these people, and they represent America? I think not, but nice try. Oh yeah, and by the way if those 20,000 people represent America, what about that other equally large protest that happened a few months later? you know the one with all the rainbow flags? oh you conveniently missed that one huh? big f***ing surprise.
