Media Matters Article
I can hardly do it justice and it would take forever to redo all the link, so rather than plagerize, I'll just let you read it.
My Commentary:
BRILLIANT!
Common Sense
Friday, October 30, 2009
Laugh a Little: Halloween is Better Than Sex??
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!
Common Sense
Practice Non-Religion: Pat Robertson on Hate Crimes Bill
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.
Common Sense
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.
Common Sense
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Anti-Gay Rhetoric 101: Scholastic Books says Lesbian Parents are Offensive?
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.
Common Sense
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.
Common Sense
Fox Noise: Cash 4 Clunkers = Spread the Wealth
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
(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.
This is me laughing at how stupid people are.
Common Sense
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Anti-Gay Rhetoric 101: "Ex-Gays" (Part 1)
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."
Get ready for it!
Common Sense
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."
Get ready for it!
Common Sense
You Might Be a Racist: "Miscegenation is a Crime" Photo shows up on the RNC website
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."
Common Sense
Monday, October 26, 2009
Fox Noise: Is it "News" or "Opinion?"
I'll let you be the judge on that question, but here is some food for thought from Media Matters for America.
The News and Opinion segments sound pretty similar... hmmm...
Common Sense
The News and Opinion segments sound pretty similar... hmmm...
Common Sense
Fox Noise: Fox News vs. The White House
here is a wonderful little clip by Media Matters for America.
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).
Common Sense
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).
Common Sense
Life's Little Joys: Cardozo Law School LGBT Recruitment Letter
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.
Common Sense
Friday, October 23, 2009
Anti-Gay Rhetoric 101: The "Price" of Prop 8
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.
Common Sense
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.
Common Sense
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Fox Noise: Glenn Beck s. Volunteerism
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.
Common Sense
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.
Common Sense
Fox Noise: Top 10 Fox News Distortions
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:
#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.
For your amusement:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Queer and Loathing in D.C. | ||||
| ||||
Fair and Balanced? Yeah Right!
Common Sense
Racial Politics: Illegal Alien Costume
Ok, here is a little of my conservative side coming out (I know, it's very rare). So apparently there is a big controversy right now over an Illegal Alien Costume that has come out for Halloween. The costume is a orange "prison like" jumpsuit, with an alien mask and a green card. Hownestly, when I saw this the first time I laughed a little. It's funny.
I recognize that some people might find it offensive because it is meant to satyre an entire group of people, but I don't think this version does, because you aren't really satyring the group, you are making fun of the concept. Now, there were versions that I found offensive. When the alien has a baseball cap or sombrero and a handlebar mustache, I think that was tasteless. If the image were clearly a mexican man/woman then it would also be wrong, but it's not. It's of an alien, and its funny.
I suppose my main reason for not finding it offensive is that, while there is a clear connection with the politically hot topic of illegal immegration, it's poking fun at the concept not the people. One person remarked that he thought it was meant to suggest that illegal aliens aren't human. That is a stretch and you might be a little over sensitive if you come to that conclusion. I think it is funny because it suggests that maybe our immegration policies are silly in that we might even call an actual alien an illegal immegrant. That might be a little stupid huh?
Anyway, I don't think it's that bad, but since I'm not an illegal immegrant, I will leave the decision of whether it should stay or go up to those individuals.
Common Sense
I suppose my main reason for not finding it offensive is that, while there is a clear connection with the politically hot topic of illegal immegration, it's poking fun at the concept not the people. One person remarked that he thought it was meant to suggest that illegal aliens aren't human. That is a stretch and you might be a little over sensitive if you come to that conclusion. I think it is funny because it suggests that maybe our immegration policies are silly in that we might even call an actual alien an illegal immegrant. That might be a little stupid huh?
Anyway, I don't think it's that bad, but since I'm not an illegal immegrant, I will leave the decision of whether it should stay or go up to those individuals.
Common Sense
Leave the Ivory Tower Alone: Religious Freedom on Campus
In this week's Chronicle of Higher Education, which I "borrowed" from my boss (hehe), I found a rather disturbing advertisement. Check it out:
So, basically, they are suggesting that speech codes protecting against hate speech, speech zones, student fees, and non-discrimination policies are unconstitutional. Ok, these people must be stupid. Let's find out!
I decided to visit the website, and guess what I discovered! It's a religious freedom website. Not just that it is a christian website. And who is sponsoring it? None other than the Alliance Defense Fund. Normally I would say, "whatever this is just another rediculous ploy by religious groups to get more special privileges that no one else gets, but what really bothered me is the scare tactics they used on the main page. Including an image of the Supreme Court house claiming that "Administrators are facing a sharp increase in costly constitutional litigation as students challenge unlawful policies."
The attorney in charge of this organization is David French (pictured right). David has been a practicing lawyer since graduating Harvard Law in 1994 and is the author of A Season for Justice: Defending the Rights of the Christian Home, Church, and School (2002). Clearly, a Harvard education does not guarantee intellectual ability. Or perhaps religion is to blame for corrupting what might otherwise have been a very sound mind. As if his book were not bad enough, Mr. French has also authored a number of reports for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a religious extremist group that advocates religious indoctrination in higher education. Take a moment to notice how both Mr. French's organization and FIRE attempt to cloud their true efforts under the disguise of protecting individual rights, when what they mean is individual rights for christians.
Now, since I'm thoroughly annoyed by this garabage, I'm going to take a moment to tell you why they are wrong.
1) Non-Discrimination Policies - Non-discrimination policies are the same as those found in legislation such as ENDA, Hate Crimes, etc. They protect individuals from discrimination, not speech. A religious nut can stand in the middle of the quad and say whatever he/she wants and no one is going to cite a non-discrimination policy. However, if a religious group rejects a person from membership, leadership, or some other activity, they have violated the terms of the university's non-discrimination policy and the law. So, it's not about speech at all, you are welcome to have your opinion, you are welcome to voice that opinion, and you are welcome to complain all you like, but you still have disciminate in your actions.
2) Speech Codes - these are a little more difficult to defend, and for the most part, the courts haven't really liked them. However, the problem is in the wording, not the concepts. Speech codes are meant to stop violence from breaking out on campus. Religious groups love using fighting words, probably even more so than any other group, and it's probably because religions are violent organizations. So, it is perfectly acceptable that campuses should want to prevent these groups from inciting massive riots or fights in the middle of campus. When a religious nut calls someone a "fag" that is NOT protected speech, and no sane person can argue that "fag" adds anything to the "market place of ideas" view of the educational setting. it is meant to incite conflict and that is NOT protected speech.
3) Student Fees - I'm curious what campuses are denying any group access to student activity fees. Again, religious groups should not have privileged access to funds, but nor should they be denied. It's not surprising though that these groups would want to get more than others and then claim they were getting less.
4) Speech Zones - This is where the religiously inclined kill their own arguement. 50 people screaming outside a classroom window adds nothing to the "marketplace of ideas" and would in fact distract from that mission. It seems like the obvious response by students who don't like religious groups would be to use this stuff against them, stand in their meetings yelling and screaming, or join their clubs and vote out their leaders. And according to them you'd have this right because of free speech. I think they might start singing a different tune.
Religious students on campus are given privileges far beyond those enshrined in the constitution. And considering religious belief is, by its very nature, anti-thetical to the intellectual and academic mission of the university to open the mind to critical thinking, I think they have enough privileges and don't deserve anymore.
Common Sense
So, basically, they are suggesting that speech codes protecting against hate speech, speech zones, student fees, and non-discrimination policies are unconstitutional. Ok, these people must be stupid. Let's find out!
Now, since I'm thoroughly annoyed by this garabage, I'm going to take a moment to tell you why they are wrong.
1) Non-Discrimination Policies - Non-discrimination policies are the same as those found in legislation such as ENDA, Hate Crimes, etc. They protect individuals from discrimination, not speech. A religious nut can stand in the middle of the quad and say whatever he/she wants and no one is going to cite a non-discrimination policy. However, if a religious group rejects a person from membership, leadership, or some other activity, they have violated the terms of the university's non-discrimination policy and the law. So, it's not about speech at all, you are welcome to have your opinion, you are welcome to voice that opinion, and you are welcome to complain all you like, but you still have disciminate in your actions.
2) Speech Codes - these are a little more difficult to defend, and for the most part, the courts haven't really liked them. However, the problem is in the wording, not the concepts. Speech codes are meant to stop violence from breaking out on campus. Religious groups love using fighting words, probably even more so than any other group, and it's probably because religions are violent organizations. So, it is perfectly acceptable that campuses should want to prevent these groups from inciting massive riots or fights in the middle of campus. When a religious nut calls someone a "fag" that is NOT protected speech, and no sane person can argue that "fag" adds anything to the "market place of ideas" view of the educational setting. it is meant to incite conflict and that is NOT protected speech.
3) Student Fees - I'm curious what campuses are denying any group access to student activity fees. Again, religious groups should not have privileged access to funds, but nor should they be denied. It's not surprising though that these groups would want to get more than others and then claim they were getting less.
4) Speech Zones - This is where the religiously inclined kill their own arguement. 50 people screaming outside a classroom window adds nothing to the "marketplace of ideas" and would in fact distract from that mission. It seems like the obvious response by students who don't like religious groups would be to use this stuff against them, stand in their meetings yelling and screaming, or join their clubs and vote out their leaders. And according to them you'd have this right because of free speech. I think they might start singing a different tune.
Religious students on campus are given privileges far beyond those enshrined in the constitution. And considering religious belief is, by its very nature, anti-thetical to the intellectual and academic mission of the university to open the mind to critical thinking, I think they have enough privileges and don't deserve anymore.
Common Sense
Monday, October 19, 2009
Neo-Con Agenda: Mainstreaming Extremism
Here is an interesting article I found today. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) was asked at the Western Conservative Political Action Conference whether he agreed with the impeachement efforts of Floyd Brown (a truly nutty neo-conservative extremist). Floyd has been arguing that President Obama is a very dangerous man who is threatening our liberties and should thus be impeached. What exactly is he guilty of you ask? why, the high crime of being "liberal" of course. (for anyone with half a brain it should be obvious that this is a far FAR cry from the required "high crimes and misdemeanors" required by the constitution for an impeachment to happen.
Anyway, the Republican congressman from California was asked what he thought and he responded that while he did recognize Obama's "Marxist background," he did not think this was enough to impecah the guy.
Watch:
So, here's my problem with this. Everyone calls out people who are more extreme than themselves, but what happened here is that when you ask an extremist to comment on an ultra-extremist, you make the extremist look more moderate than they really are. Everyone is jumping off the deep end talking about how EVEN this nut job thinks Floyd Brown is crazy. Well, no one is talking about that little justifier Rep. Rohrabacher snuck under the radar.
Obama is NOT a Marxist, nor has he ever been, nor will he ever be. Any person who truly in their heart of hearts believes that Obama is a Marxist should go back to their high school and demand a refund of their tuition or tax dollars because you are an idiot. The most liberal of all democrats in this country don't even come close to Marxism. Even our ONE socialist in the House of Representatives would be a VERY conservative Marxist, if he was at all. Why? Because Obama is not killing off all his opponants and the wealthy people for their money. Obama is not advocating a revolt by the working class. He is recommending that maybe rich people should go back to paying their fair share of the tax burden.
So here is a quiz on your knowledge of Obama's economic plan:
Option A (Liberalism): Obama raises taxes on the top 5% of Americans by no more than 10% so that rich people are paying 1/3 of what they used to pay in taxes instead of 1/4 like they did under Reagan and Bush 2.
Option B (Socialism): Obama takes ALL of your money no matter who you are and redistributes it according to need.
Option C (Marxism): Obama sparks a working class revolt, where the working class rises up and takes the money from the rich and then takes over the government.
Option D (Communism/Lenonism): Obama kills off all Republican politicians and any person who advocates republicans ideology will be killed by the Obama death squads or sent to Alaskan labor camps. Obama then kill off all liberal democrats who disagree with him and installs himself as the sole ruler of the country instituting a massive suppression of anyone else who dissagrees with him. He then dictates to the people what jobs they will work and how much they will get paid based on need and job skills.
If you chose anything except "Option A" you are an idiot who needs a history lesson.
I find myself continuing to ask, how can anyone be so stupid and uneducated as to believe that Obama is anything further left than a traditional American Democrat? Once again I can only assume it is the result of the neo-conservative campaign to destroy education and further scare people into voting for them. Un-american would be an understatement I think.
Common Sense
Anyway, the Republican congressman from California was asked what he thought and he responded that while he did recognize Obama's "Marxist background," he did not think this was enough to impecah the guy.
Watch:
So, here's my problem with this. Everyone calls out people who are more extreme than themselves, but what happened here is that when you ask an extremist to comment on an ultra-extremist, you make the extremist look more moderate than they really are. Everyone is jumping off the deep end talking about how EVEN this nut job thinks Floyd Brown is crazy. Well, no one is talking about that little justifier Rep. Rohrabacher snuck under the radar.
Obama is NOT a Marxist, nor has he ever been, nor will he ever be. Any person who truly in their heart of hearts believes that Obama is a Marxist should go back to their high school and demand a refund of their tuition or tax dollars because you are an idiot. The most liberal of all democrats in this country don't even come close to Marxism. Even our ONE socialist in the House of Representatives would be a VERY conservative Marxist, if he was at all. Why? Because Obama is not killing off all his opponants and the wealthy people for their money. Obama is not advocating a revolt by the working class. He is recommending that maybe rich people should go back to paying their fair share of the tax burden.
So here is a quiz on your knowledge of Obama's economic plan:
Option A (Liberalism): Obama raises taxes on the top 5% of Americans by no more than 10% so that rich people are paying 1/3 of what they used to pay in taxes instead of 1/4 like they did under Reagan and Bush 2.
Option B (Socialism): Obama takes ALL of your money no matter who you are and redistributes it according to need.
Option C (Marxism): Obama sparks a working class revolt, where the working class rises up and takes the money from the rich and then takes over the government.
Option D (Communism/Lenonism): Obama kills off all Republican politicians and any person who advocates republicans ideology will be killed by the Obama death squads or sent to Alaskan labor camps. Obama then kill off all liberal democrats who disagree with him and installs himself as the sole ruler of the country instituting a massive suppression of anyone else who dissagrees with him. He then dictates to the people what jobs they will work and how much they will get paid based on need and job skills.
If you chose anything except "Option A" you are an idiot who needs a history lesson.
I find myself continuing to ask, how can anyone be so stupid and uneducated as to believe that Obama is anything further left than a traditional American Democrat? Once again I can only assume it is the result of the neo-conservative campaign to destroy education and further scare people into voting for them. Un-american would be an understatement I think.
Common Sense
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Neo-Con Agenda: Giving Credit Where Credit is Due?
Ok so here is an interesting progression that's been happening on a certain disreputable news channel.
Since Obama has taken office the Fox News Channel has used the following sound bites to try and keep the blame off of Bush.
First, You can't blame Bush for the recession, blame Wall Street!
Then, You should blame Clinton!
Next, You should blame Obama because he's fighting with Wall Street, and what's good for Wall Street is good for Mains street, so Obama is hurting you! (anybody noticing the convenient reversal?)
Here is the most recent theory out of Fox News:
So, it's ok to blame Bush now, just as long as we give him credit for fixing it too. Because it's all or nothing. Either Bash screwed it up and fixed it, or Obama screwed it up and we should vote him out.
Well, let me just throw out a third option. Bush screwed up the economy, and Obama is fixing it. doesn't that seem like the most likely answer. The economy fails after 8 years of Bush's borrow to spend mentality giving us two trillion dollar wars, massive tax cuts that helped rich people, and serious deregulation that allowed lenders to balloon their profits by basically creating money out of thin air. There is some evidence that WE as consumers are also at fault, I mean it's not like our credit card lifestyles were a great choice. But in the end Obama is fixing stuff. He could afford to speed it up a little, but things are going in the right direction.
I think I might be right, and I think Mr. Cavuto might be full of cow poop.
Common Sense
Since Obama has taken office the Fox News Channel has used the following sound bites to try and keep the blame off of Bush.
First, You can't blame Bush for the recession, blame Wall Street!
Then, You should blame Clinton!
Next, You should blame Obama because he's fighting with Wall Street, and what's good for Wall Street is good for Mains street, so Obama is hurting you! (anybody noticing the convenient reversal?)
Here is the most recent theory out of Fox News:
So, it's ok to blame Bush now, just as long as we give him credit for fixing it too. Because it's all or nothing. Either Bash screwed it up and fixed it, or Obama screwed it up and we should vote him out.
Well, let me just throw out a third option. Bush screwed up the economy, and Obama is fixing it. doesn't that seem like the most likely answer. The economy fails after 8 years of Bush's borrow to spend mentality giving us two trillion dollar wars, massive tax cuts that helped rich people, and serious deregulation that allowed lenders to balloon their profits by basically creating money out of thin air. There is some evidence that WE as consumers are also at fault, I mean it's not like our credit card lifestyles were a great choice. But in the end Obama is fixing stuff. He could afford to speed it up a little, but things are going in the right direction.
I think I might be right, and I think Mr. Cavuto might be full of cow poop.
Common Sense
You Might Be a Racist: Louisiana Justice of the Peace Denies Interracial Couple Right to Marry
Consider, for a moment, the following story.
A Louisiana justice of the peace, Keith Bardwell (left picture), has decided he has the right to deny an interracial couple (right picture) their right to marry.
As if that were not inflammatory enough, he attempts to explain away his decision as not racist on the following grounds:
"I don't do interracial marriages because I don't want to put children in a situation they didn't bring on themselves," Bardwell said. "In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer."
Basically he argues that he marries white couples and black couples, but wont marry interracial couples because neither community accepts the children. (because he totally has the right to make that decision)
A quick note on why he is stupid. As I've said before, your religion or personal beliefs are indeed protected by the constitution, but you are NOT allowed to act on them! so it's fine if you believe this couple's children will be miserable, but you are not, under any circumstances allowed to deny this couple their rights, just because you believe that, because then you will have infringed on their rights.
my only consolation on the supreme stupidness of this man is that knowledge that:
1) He does not, in fact, have this right. The 1967 Loving case will be brought up and he'll be smacked down and likely have to pay civil damages as well. sucks for him.
2) he'll be fired from his job for breaking the law, negligence, incompetence, or some combination of these three things.
3) most of society seems to recognize that this guy is in fact a racist.
P.S. is anyone noticing a striking similarity to gay/lesbian marriage here?
Common Sense
As if that were not inflammatory enough, he attempts to explain away his decision as not racist on the following grounds:
"I don't do interracial marriages because I don't want to put children in a situation they didn't bring on themselves," Bardwell said. "In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer."
Basically he argues that he marries white couples and black couples, but wont marry interracial couples because neither community accepts the children. (because he totally has the right to make that decision)
A quick note on why he is stupid. As I've said before, your religion or personal beliefs are indeed protected by the constitution, but you are NOT allowed to act on them! so it's fine if you believe this couple's children will be miserable, but you are not, under any circumstances allowed to deny this couple their rights, just because you believe that, because then you will have infringed on their rights.
1) He does not, in fact, have this right. The 1967 Loving case will be brought up and he'll be smacked down and likely have to pay civil damages as well. sucks for him.
2) he'll be fired from his job for breaking the law, negligence, incompetence, or some combination of these three things.
3) most of society seems to recognize that this guy is in fact a racist.
P.S. is anyone noticing a striking similarity to gay/lesbian marriage here?
Common Sense
Friday, October 16, 2009
Neo-Con Agenda: Congressional Gay Bashing (Round 2)
You know, it really sucks when people do their jobs. Kevin Jennings (pictured to the left) is under fire again from neo-con extremists. This time Rep. Steve King (R-IA), pictured to the right, and 51 House Republicans have signed a letter urging President Obama to fire Jennings. Their reasoning? Because he is gay and he handled a situation many years ago in a professional, developmentally appropriate way. (In their continuing commitment to push a radical right wing agenda, Fox News is the only station covering this story)
Keep up the good work Mr. Jennings. If these guys are after you, you know you are doing something right.
Common Sense
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Neo-Con Agenda: The "New" GOP(.com)?
This was just too good to pass up. When the news of the new RNC website came to my attention a few days ago I avoided it because it sounded like a pathetic (and failed) attempt to reach younger voters. Here were some of the initial problems:
#1 - Michael Steele's Blog was called "What Up?" - I am personally offended by this. not only am I offended because this is a national figure advocating improper english, but mostly because he is attempting to reach out to a younger generation that has no interest in republican politics. Younger people are liberal, not because they are indoctrinated, but before your party is about 20 years behind the times.
#2 - No Future Leaders - The party has no future leaders because no one wants to be Republican
#3 - Jackie Robinson is a GOP Hero? - The party, in it's effort to protest their racist image, has declared that Jackie Robinson is a GOP Hero. I'll talk about these issues later in this post, but for now lets just say, this isn't really true, he was actually very critical of their racial tactics.
#4 - Iraw War was the ONLY accomplishment? - Nope, I was not the one who misspelled that, the website misspelled it. Spellcheck? and doesn't it make sense to wait to launch a website until it's finished?
Alright, so now it's been a week, and I decided to go check out this website. I figured I would get a good laugh and maybe, just maybe, I'd find something interesting. Let me try to describe to you what I found.
Front Page:
I went looking around the front page. Aside from the extremely irritating faces that replaced the "O" in GOP on the title bar, I found it to be quite pleasing to the eye. There is a misleading video titled "Trillions in new spending" and a blog called "Sound Reasoning" that made me giggle a little bit at their hilarity, but then I stumbled on something very interesting. You see I had recently caught up on my CNN Ticker reports, and found out that the insurance industry is now on the offensive against the Democratic health care bill. Then, on the new RNC website, I saw this from the Facebook feed on the left hand side of the screen:
Realistically only one of them can be right, which leads me to believe that again, the RNC is deliberately misleading people...AGAIN!
Heroes:
So, I wanted to go see what all the fuss was about on this heroes page. It does still include Jackie Robinson. What really shocked me is that their heroes (aside from Reagan) are predominantly historical figures. This is very smart on their part, because it's impossible for someone to claim with any certainty that Susan B. Anthony was NOT Republican (this assumes that they have no responsibility to prove that she IS, which seems to be that accepted assumption).
Steele's Blog:
Most likely as a response to the uproar of criticism (and outright mocking) that followed his first Blog "What Up?", Michael Steele's blog has been renamed, "Change The Game." Nothing particularly surprising about this. Once again Steele screwed up.
Accomplishments:
Alright this was the section that kinda pissed me off. Why? because it completely lacks a historical perspective and it does so for the purpose of misrepresenting history. Is it factually correct? Yes, but as any good historian knows, thats rarely the whole story. In the Accomplishments section the GOP takes credit for all of the following:
The first hispanic governor
Freeing the slaves
Extending voting rights
The 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments
Opposing Plessy v. Ferguson
The first African-American Senator
The Civil Rights Act 1875
Women's rights
The first women mayors
The first jewish cabinet secretary
The first hipanic Senator
The first asian Senator
Wrote Brown v. Board (Justice Warren)
The interstate Highway System
Civil Rights Act of 1957
Ending Segregation in Little Rock
Opening Relations with China
-----------------------------------------------------
Tax Cuts (Reagan)
"Tear Down This Wall"
Contract with America
Welfare Reform
Operation Enduring Freedom
More Tax Cuts (Bush II)
Operation Iraqi Freedom
Vouchers for DC Schoolchildren
I could go on for HOURS about how each of these is somewhat misleading (like how the Republicans actually openly HATE Justice Warren), but I'll focus more on the big picture and why you should think hard before you vote Republican because of all the good stuff they've done.
History lesson: I purposefully added the line between "Opening relations with China" and "Tax Cuts (Reagan)." I did so because this represented a major shift in the Republican party. Yes, republicans up until that point had been extremely supportive of equal rights (notice how they have been silent on the matter for the past 30 years), however, that was a different party than the one we now know as Republicans. When Reagan came to power, he did so by casting aside the old (racially diverse) republican party and bringing in three new (Neo-Conservative) interest groups: War Hawks (Political Conservatives), Free Marketeers (Economic Conservatives), and the Religious Right (Social Conservatives). This was Reagan's "Big Tent."
This process was made easier by the recent loss of minorities and women to the democratic party, who had become champions of equal rights in the courts. "Liberalism" was championed by Earl Warren, whose leadership on the court is celebrated as a golden era for equal rights. The only way that Republicans could regain their position of power was to incorporate the three extremist elements that had been left out. Notice how ALL of the "accomplishments" since 1980 represent one of the three interest groups in the "Big Tent." Tax Cuts for the rich (Free Marketeers), Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (War Hawks), Contract with America (Religious Right). The Republican party has become the party of extremists and they have done so by implementing a populist propaganda campaign, while pushing and extremist agendas behind closed doors.
The current party has no right to claim pre-1980 Republican accomplishments as their own, because it's no longer the same party.
I give this Website an F, and I refer them to the office of judicial affairs for having perpetrated academic dishonesty
#1 - Michael Steele's Blog was called "What Up?" - I am personally offended by this. not only am I offended because this is a national figure advocating improper english, but mostly because he is attempting to reach out to a younger generation that has no interest in republican politics. Younger people are liberal, not because they are indoctrinated, but before your party is about 20 years behind the times.
#2 - No Future Leaders - The party has no future leaders because no one wants to be Republican
#3 - Jackie Robinson is a GOP Hero? - The party, in it's effort to protest their racist image, has declared that Jackie Robinson is a GOP Hero. I'll talk about these issues later in this post, but for now lets just say, this isn't really true, he was actually very critical of their racial tactics.
#4 - Iraw War was the ONLY accomplishment? - Nope, I was not the one who misspelled that, the website misspelled it. Spellcheck? and doesn't it make sense to wait to launch a website until it's finished?
Alright, so now it's been a week, and I decided to go check out this website. I figured I would get a good laugh and maybe, just maybe, I'd find something interesting. Let me try to describe to you what I found.
Front Page:
I went looking around the front page. Aside from the extremely irritating faces that replaced the "O" in GOP on the title bar, I found it to be quite pleasing to the eye. There is a misleading video titled "Trillions in new spending" and a blog called "Sound Reasoning" that made me giggle a little bit at their hilarity, but then I stumbled on something very interesting. You see I had recently caught up on my CNN Ticker reports, and found out that the insurance industry is now on the offensive against the Democratic health care bill. Then, on the new RNC website, I saw this from the Facebook feed on the left hand side of the screen:
Heroes:
So, I wanted to go see what all the fuss was about on this heroes page. It does still include Jackie Robinson. What really shocked me is that their heroes (aside from Reagan) are predominantly historical figures. This is very smart on their part, because it's impossible for someone to claim with any certainty that Susan B. Anthony was NOT Republican (this assumes that they have no responsibility to prove that she IS, which seems to be that accepted assumption).
Steele's Blog:
Most likely as a response to the uproar of criticism (and outright mocking) that followed his first Blog "What Up?", Michael Steele's blog has been renamed, "Change The Game." Nothing particularly surprising about this. Once again Steele screwed up.
Accomplishments:
Alright this was the section that kinda pissed me off. Why? because it completely lacks a historical perspective and it does so for the purpose of misrepresenting history. Is it factually correct? Yes, but as any good historian knows, thats rarely the whole story. In the Accomplishments section the GOP takes credit for all of the following:
The first hispanic governor
Freeing the slaves
Extending voting rightsThe 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments
Opposing Plessy v. Ferguson
The first African-American Senator
The Civil Rights Act 1875
Women's rights
The first women mayors
The first jewish cabinet secretary
The first hipanic Senator
The first asian Senator
Wrote Brown v. Board (Justice Warren)
The interstate Highway System
Civil Rights Act of 1957
Ending Segregation in Little Rock
Opening Relations with China
-----------------------------------------------------
Tax Cuts (Reagan)"Tear Down This Wall"
Contract with America
Welfare Reform
Operation Enduring Freedom
More Tax Cuts (Bush II)
Operation Iraqi Freedom
Vouchers for DC Schoolchildren
I could go on for HOURS about how each of these is somewhat misleading (like how the Republicans actually openly HATE Justice Warren), but I'll focus more on the big picture and why you should think hard before you vote Republican because of all the good stuff they've done.
History lesson: I purposefully added the line between "Opening relations with China" and "Tax Cuts (Reagan)." I did so because this represented a major shift in the Republican party. Yes, republicans up until that point had been extremely supportive of equal rights (notice how they have been silent on the matter for the past 30 years), however, that was a different party than the one we now know as Republicans. When Reagan came to power, he did so by casting aside the old (racially diverse) republican party and bringing in three new (Neo-Conservative) interest groups: War Hawks (Political Conservatives), Free Marketeers (Economic Conservatives), and the Religious Right (Social Conservatives). This was Reagan's "Big Tent."
This process was made easier by the recent loss of minorities and women to the democratic party, who had become champions of equal rights in the courts. "Liberalism" was championed by Earl Warren, whose leadership on the court is celebrated as a golden era for equal rights. The only way that Republicans could regain their position of power was to incorporate the three extremist elements that had been left out. Notice how ALL of the "accomplishments" since 1980 represent one of the three interest groups in the "Big Tent." Tax Cuts for the rich (Free Marketeers), Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (War Hawks), Contract with America (Religious Right). The Republican party has become the party of extremists and they have done so by implementing a populist propaganda campaign, while pushing and extremist agendas behind closed doors.The current party has no right to claim pre-1980 Republican accomplishments as their own, because it's no longer the same party.
I give this Website an F, and I refer them to the office of judicial affairs for having perpetrated academic dishonesty
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Laugh a Little: John Stewart Roasts CNN's "Fact Checking"
Ok, I died laughing when I saw this. It's funny because it's SO true. Yet no one bothers to fix it. I love CNN, but they do need to get it together.
Enjoy!
Common Sense
Enjoy!
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| CNN Leaves It There | ||||
| ||||
Common Sense
Laugh a Little: Ban Divorce in California
This is a truly amazing mock-ad. It's the argument we've all made before. If you want to protect marriage, how about you start with divorce. Enjoy!
Common Sense
Common Sense
Monday, October 12, 2009
Practice Non-Religion: Conservative Bible Project
So, I've decided I'm an atheist. It took me a while to just come out and say it, but this next post pretty much just made it clear to me that religion is not a good thing. I also thoroughly enjoyed Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, so I figure, it's time to just come out with it. Rather than label these posts in a negative way like "Religion sucks" or "religiously wrong" I've decided a more positive tone. Instead I will simply advocate the "Practice of Non-Religion."
6) Hell is REAL! - Hell and the Devil are real and we need to say so.
7) Express Free-Market Parables - We need to connect the bible to free market principles. (Even though the church doesn't actually agree with this because capitalism and the free-market are built on the profit motive, i.e. greed *which is a sin if I remember correctly*)
8) Remove Liberal Passages - So, apparently that pesky story of the adulteress was really a liberal plot to make Jesus look like a good guy. (I guess he was actually a fire breathing dragon who was as spiteful as the ancient jewish god Yahweh)
9) Credit the Open-Mindedness of the Disciples - Supposedly they were very open-minded.
10) Use Concise Words Rather tha Liberal Wordiness - We are going to switch all references to "Yahweh," "Jahova," and "Lord God" to just plain old lord. Because it's weird talking about the "Lord" by all those other names that make him sound like a bad guy. you know, like when Yahweh said "Jews, I give you this land and you should go out and slaughter (murder) all these tribes in the area, then rape their women to their blood lines will die out (genocide), and then burn down their homes (arsen), then take all the gold and silver and put it in my churches (theft). Yeah I wouldn't want to be associated with that guy either.
Sometimes I wonder where it will end. These people are already so crazy that they SHOULD be completely ostrocized by society, yet we continue a policy of religious "tolerance" when that tolerance has lead to centuries of ignorance, violence, and hate. How insane must they become before someone steps up and says, enough is enough, go back to the caves. What if they tried to indoctrinate your children in schools you pay for? What if they tried to convert you? What if they tried to kill you? What if they flew planes into your office buildings? What if they took over your governments and used it to oppress you? What if they killed everyone like you?
Common Sense
*to all those who have a healthy relationship with "God," you have my respect and admiration for being able to maintain your faith despite all the people around you going crazy. I hope that you will continue to blaze your own personal relationships with whatever "God" you believe in and tune out the hate-mongers. I simply can't intellectually justify being a believer."
So the extremists of the religious right have set their sights on a new liberal icon. The bible. Wait, the BIBLE?! WTF? no, you heard me right, the wingnuts on the right have decided that the bible, the root of social conservatism and guidebook to all things illogical, was too liberal. They provide 10 goals (or reasons) for this re-write. They are as follows:
1) The Bible is Too Liberal - liberal bias has changed the "thoughts" in the text and we need to return to a "thought for thought" translation of the bible.
2) The Bible Should be Sexist! - liberals have translated the text using "gender neutral" statements, and it is up to the god-fearing conservatives to replace those with their original sexist meanings.
3) The Bible Should be More Complicated - Apparently the current bible is written at a 7th grade reading level and needs to be enhanced with the intellectual force and logic of Christianity. (Does it present a problem that christianity is based on people being too stupid to question and thus, if you made the bible more complicated, people would be too stupid to understand what they are not supposed to question?)
4) The Bible Needs to Include MORE Conservative Terms - Like "volunteer," "peace," and "miracle." (So, lets take out the liberal bias and introduce conservative bias, Yikes! and since when are those conservative terms? wouldn't conservative terms be selfishness, greed, war, and ignorance?)
5) Combat Harmful Addiction - use current political terminology to explain things like using "gambling" instead of "cast lots." (wait wait, so we are selectively correcting words back to their original meaning now? Sexism is ok, but heaven forbid we should call it "casting lots")6) Hell is REAL! - Hell and the Devil are real and we need to say so.
7) Express Free-Market Parables - We need to connect the bible to free market principles. (Even though the church doesn't actually agree with this because capitalism and the free-market are built on the profit motive, i.e. greed *which is a sin if I remember correctly*)9) Credit the Open-Mindedness of the Disciples - Supposedly they were very open-minded.
10) Use Concise Words Rather tha Liberal Wordiness - We are going to switch all references to "Yahweh," "Jahova," and "Lord God" to just plain old lord. Because it's weird talking about the "Lord" by all those other names that make him sound like a bad guy. you know, like when Yahweh said "Jews, I give you this land and you should go out and slaughter (murder) all these tribes in the area, then rape their women to their blood lines will die out (genocide), and then burn down their homes (arsen), then take all the gold and silver and put it in my churches (theft). Yeah I wouldn't want to be associated with that guy either.
Sometimes I wonder where it will end. These people are already so crazy that they SHOULD be completely ostrocized by society, yet we continue a policy of religious "tolerance" when that tolerance has lead to centuries of ignorance, violence, and hate. How insane must they become before someone steps up and says, enough is enough, go back to the caves. What if they tried to indoctrinate your children in schools you pay for? What if they tried to convert you? What if they tried to kill you? What if they flew planes into your office buildings? What if they took over your governments and used it to oppress you? What if they killed everyone like you?
Common Sense
*to all those who have a healthy relationship with "God," you have my respect and admiration for being able to maintain your faith despite all the people around you going crazy. I hope that you will continue to blaze your own personal relationships with whatever "God" you believe in and tune out the hate-mongers. I simply can't intellectually justify being a believer."
Michele Bachmann Watch: O'Reilly Thinks we Hate Her Because She's Hot?
So here is a dandy little clip for you. Apparently, I hate Michele Bachmann because she's just so damn attractive.
As for the "stalkers," I don't think paranoia counts Ms. Bachmann. No one is stalking you, except maybe your crazy fanatical constituents. Just accept that you are a woman and your neo-conservative base wants to drag you back to the kitchen where they think you belong.
Common Sense
Once again I'm amazed at how Mr. O'Reilly can be both stupid and sexist in the same sentence. Hate to dissapoint you Billo, but we hate her because she is crazy, stupid, and trying to cause a second Red Scare. And I for one do not find her the least bit attractive. That could be because I'm gay, or it could be that she looks like Bat boy (See picture). Eitherway, I'm going to have to disagree.
As for the "stalkers," I don't think paranoia counts Ms. Bachmann. No one is stalking you, except maybe your crazy fanatical constituents. Just accept that you are a woman and your neo-conservative base wants to drag you back to the kitchen where they think you belong.
Common Sense
MN Politics: Gingrich Support Pawlenty's 2012 Presidential Bid
I do believe congratulations are in order for Gov. Pawlenty. He has just been given support by one of the most destructive political opperatives of all time. Newt Gingrich as you might recall was the principle architect of the scorched earth politics that brought republicans to power in 1994. The next six years would witness the rise of corruption on a scale not seen in all of US history eventually culminating in the 2000 election of George Bush as president. The damage done since Gingrich declared war on the government itself has been lasting and once again a democratic president is forced to clean up the mess (a task made more difficult by the republicans continuing to make a mess in the minority).
So congrats to you Tim Pawlenty, you have been endorsed by one of America's most notorious screw ups, and the man who brought about the disaster that is the current republican party.
Common Sense
(Photo compliments of Politico.com)
Celebrate Progress: Harvey Milk Day!!
The Governor of California signed the Harvey Milk Day bill into law. This designates May 22, as Harvey Milk Day in California. It does not close schools and businesses, but it does offer teachers an opportunity to talk to their students about issues relating to LGBT people and political activism.
CNN's coverage was somewhat blah. In the name of the "equal time doctrine" (i.e. the idiots vs intellectuals doctrine), CNN decided to include a quote from "Save California" president Randy Thomasson, a leading religious fanatic in California.
Thomasson, in the ignorant fashion we have come to expect, declared that "Harvey Milk [is] a terrible role model for children" and that this bill could be used to support "mock gay weddings" or "pride parades."
Come on CNN, way to rain on our parade! and if you are going to do it at least use someone who isn't a nutcase.
Common Sense
Michele Bachmann Watch: Bachmann Announces She is a Slow Reader
Honestly, which one of her staff members though this would be a good thing for her to say?
It's like she just can't help but be an idiot.
Common Sense
It's like she just can't help but be an idiot.
Common Sense
Ignorance is Bad! No More Funding for Political Science Research?
Here's another wonderful example of Republicans trying to keep the masses ignorant because stupid people win them elections. They lie, cheat, and exagerate their way to power knowing that as long as they demonize school, research, faculty, intellectualism, and all smart people as elitist, out of touch, or "liberal" the ignorant masses will become more ignorant, and never question their rediculous policies.
Smart people overwhelmingly vote for liberal policies
Republicans want to win votes
Republicans need to find a way to keep people from being smart:Step 1 - Demonize faculty for "liberal bias"
Step 2 - Claim higher education as "indocrinating students"
Step 3 - Encourage "parent's rights" to force the school to teach ignorance (intelligent design, abstinence only, etc.)
Step 4 - Bully academia into respecting their "opinions" as legitimate theory
What Happens: Parents and children make bad choices about where to go to school, IF they will go to school, and what they learn. Critical thinking is undermined. Parents are allowed to indocrinate their children at home AND in the school house. Schools are crippled from encouraging real learning and forced to teach conservative, christian, ignorant propaganda.
Cycle: These indocrinated students (believing that education is bad) will then buy into the cycle and continue to supress critical thinking in their children, friends, co-workers, spouses, employees, etc.
Result: These undereducated people will lack the intellectual capacity to critically analyze party platforms and policies and will dogmatically vote Republican...
Common Sense
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
