Florida Governor Rick Scott has exposed his nascent political career as a simple personal enrichment scheme.
The Governor's new plan is to test state employees and recipients of public assistance for recreational drug use. Scott's chain of urgent-care clinics, Solantic, would benefit financially from this proposal, as they offer drug-screening services to employers. Random drug testing of state employees and welfare recipients sounds like a good hustle. This is in addition to his plan to privatize Medicaid, another potential windfall for Solantic.
However, sensing a potential conflict of interest, Scott claimed he transferred his stock in Solantic, so he technically doesn't own it anymore.
His wife does.
Besides the conflict of interest, Scott has managed to create a potential cash cow by doing something that will cost the government of Florida a lot of money, will not reduce "welfare fraud," but will enjoy the overwhelming support of the public. The debates about this proposals going forward are going to be about whether it's a good idea to screen welfare recipients for drug use and not whether it's a boon for Rick Scott. People opposed to the plan because Scott will benefit personally will be tagged as "soft" on drug abuse. Florida legislators who vote against it will see ads in 2012 see ads play in their districts saying they voted against requiring drug testing to receive welfare benefits and when they explain that their vote was an effort to prevent Rick Scott and his wife from making money off of taxpayers no one will understand because that will be totally eclipsed by the public's hatred for government assistance programs.
The one thing Rick Scott isn't is stupid.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Saturday, March 26, 2011
True Story
Every day I hear more and more about liberals trying to take our rights, our God-Given rights, trying to trample on the constitution and banish God to some dark abyss. This war on Christianity, on good God-fearing people, is getting out of hand. Every day I hear another story about some liberal crazy who strikes another blow against God.
It wasnt a week ago I heard about some guy who crashed a church, completely wrecked it, even hit some of the people there, all because they were selling some political bumper stickers on the side to make a little bit of money? God forbid the Church gets funds from elsewhere.
Then this same douchebag has the balls to walk down the road, and start asking people to help him out with some charity work. Pretty sure he just wrecked up a Church, and I know i'm not giving ANY money to somebody that hates God so much. Then he actually gets up on some highhorse about how the rich are slaves to their money and how its some social responsibility for those who have, to help those who have not. This is America, the land of oppurtunity, leave your requests for handouts at the door, this is not a welfare state.
Apparently though, this guy got a little bit of help so him and his buddies started some make-shift soup kitchen in the middle of nowhere. Completely ignored rules and regulations regarding mass assembly and didnt even bother to wonder where the money would come from to fund it. No wonder this man and people like him hate the rich, they spend all their money on the lazy who wont find a damn job and now he's serving food? Somebody should stop him, this is the same man who's running around with some whore off the street's, that shit cant be sanitary somebodies going to get sick and its gonna be the taxpayer who handles the burden when they cant afford the hospital bill.
The dude is out of his damn mind. Just what the world needs right? Another liberal socialist pig pandering hand-outs, hating business, and even more hating God. What kind of asshole really gets upset over seperation of Church and State? Our country was founded on Christianity. Somebody should really take care of that asshole, make him disapear all quiet like.
What was his name again?
Oh yeah, Jesus, Jesus Christ.
It wasnt a week ago I heard about some guy who crashed a church, completely wrecked it, even hit some of the people there, all because they were selling some political bumper stickers on the side to make a little bit of money? God forbid the Church gets funds from elsewhere.
Then this same douchebag has the balls to walk down the road, and start asking people to help him out with some charity work. Pretty sure he just wrecked up a Church, and I know i'm not giving ANY money to somebody that hates God so much. Then he actually gets up on some highhorse about how the rich are slaves to their money and how its some social responsibility for those who have, to help those who have not. This is America, the land of oppurtunity, leave your requests for handouts at the door, this is not a welfare state.
Apparently though, this guy got a little bit of help so him and his buddies started some make-shift soup kitchen in the middle of nowhere. Completely ignored rules and regulations regarding mass assembly and didnt even bother to wonder where the money would come from to fund it. No wonder this man and people like him hate the rich, they spend all their money on the lazy who wont find a damn job and now he's serving food? Somebody should stop him, this is the same man who's running around with some whore off the street's, that shit cant be sanitary somebodies going to get sick and its gonna be the taxpayer who handles the burden when they cant afford the hospital bill.
The dude is out of his damn mind. Just what the world needs right? Another liberal socialist pig pandering hand-outs, hating business, and even more hating God. What kind of asshole really gets upset over seperation of Church and State? Our country was founded on Christianity. Somebody should really take care of that asshole, make him disapear all quiet like.
What was his name again?
Oh yeah, Jesus, Jesus Christ.
Friday, March 25, 2011
On Birthrights
The notion of birthright citizen, or jus soli, comes to us from the common law tradition of the United Kingdom. This legal tradition holds that individuals born within the territorial confines of a given polity are citizens of that polity, with all rights, privileges, and duties associated with citizenship. It is often the law in states with little or no ethnic connection to the land. Several countries who share America’s status as a former British colony, as well as continental European countries, have modified their jus soli citizenship laws to exclude children born to illegal immigrants or temporary workers. But the rule in America dictates that your physical presence here at birth guarantees you all of the rights, privileges, and duties of US citizenship. Debates have been raging recently about whether our laws governing citizenship should be amended to restrict access. Several Republican elected officials have proposed the abolition of birthright citizenship; most notable of these is Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce, of SB 1070 fame. Senator Lindsey Graham has argued in favor of restrictions on birthright citizenship similar to other former British colonies that preclude the children of illegal immigrants and temporary workers. This post is not intended to discuss at length the wisdom of these proposals, but will discuss the constitutional history of citizenship in the United States in light of comments from Senator Pearce regarding the nature of US citizenship, who claimed that there is no such thing.
He is, in fact, correct. But only if we’re living in 1867. Last time I checked, we weren’t.
Prior to the founding of the United States, people born in British colonies in North America were, by custom, automatically granted citizenship of their respective colony in addition to being a subject of the British Crown. After the end of the American War of Independence, the several states continued this tradition of birthright citizenship, though without subjection to the Crown. However, prior to the Civil War there was no such thing as American citizenship. People were considered citizens of the states in which they resided. In the early American republic, federal regulation of immigration was limited to safety conditions on shipping vessels. States would often restrict immigration by preventing the poor, the mentally ill, and convicted criminals from immigrating to their states.
It was not until the ratification of the 14th amendment that national citizenship came into existence. The 14th amendment guaranteed federal protection of citizenship rights because of racial discrimination at the state level. It was the intent of the framers of that amendment that states be bound to the Bill of Rights in addition to the federal government. With the establishment of federal citizenship came federal regulation of citizenship, which was included, but not limited to, deciding who could become a naturalized citizen and the process of acquiring citizenship. The state of Arizona has no authority to regulate citizenship because of the 14th amendment, which states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
The intent of the amendment could be no clearer. It creates US citizenship.
As to the wisdom of restrictions on birthright citizenship, America must be careful if there are actual proposals. We can’t go the route of Germany, with thousands of legal Turkish immigrants who came after WWII and had children who were neither German citizens nor citizens of Turkey. In many cases there were 3 or 4 generations living in the same household and only one senior citizen had legal authorization to work. Such a situation in the US would be unsustainable.
I’m generally in favor of laws that increase access to US citizenship, because US citizenship is awesome. What we should be doing is finding a way to allow people to come here legally in greater numbers, not kicking people out.
He is, in fact, correct. But only if we’re living in 1867. Last time I checked, we weren’t.
Prior to the founding of the United States, people born in British colonies in North America were, by custom, automatically granted citizenship of their respective colony in addition to being a subject of the British Crown. After the end of the American War of Independence, the several states continued this tradition of birthright citizenship, though without subjection to the Crown. However, prior to the Civil War there was no such thing as American citizenship. People were considered citizens of the states in which they resided. In the early American republic, federal regulation of immigration was limited to safety conditions on shipping vessels. States would often restrict immigration by preventing the poor, the mentally ill, and convicted criminals from immigrating to their states.
It was not until the ratification of the 14th amendment that national citizenship came into existence. The 14th amendment guaranteed federal protection of citizenship rights because of racial discrimination at the state level. It was the intent of the framers of that amendment that states be bound to the Bill of Rights in addition to the federal government. With the establishment of federal citizenship came federal regulation of citizenship, which was included, but not limited to, deciding who could become a naturalized citizen and the process of acquiring citizenship. The state of Arizona has no authority to regulate citizenship because of the 14th amendment, which states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
The intent of the amendment could be no clearer. It creates US citizenship.
As to the wisdom of restrictions on birthright citizenship, America must be careful if there are actual proposals. We can’t go the route of Germany, with thousands of legal Turkish immigrants who came after WWII and had children who were neither German citizens nor citizens of Turkey. In many cases there were 3 or 4 generations living in the same household and only one senior citizen had legal authorization to work. Such a situation in the US would be unsustainable.
I’m generally in favor of laws that increase access to US citizenship, because US citizenship is awesome. What we should be doing is finding a way to allow people to come here legally in greater numbers, not kicking people out.
Democrats and the lack of control over conversation surrounding policy
I’ve been watching the coverage of the enforcement of the no-fly zone in Libya, and how the Republicans are spinning it, and had the same thought I did during the debate over the Affordable Care Act: WHY ARE WE LETTING THEM CONTROL THE CONVERSATION?
A large portion of the voting population takes what they hear from their choice news outlet as fact, whether it be the Fox News followers, or the avid watchers of MSNBC. Either way you look at it, there is a huge spin, and at times, misinformation and opinion are accepted as gospel. The result of this is a lot of really good policies the Obama administration has pushed through are vilified, and people who would benefit most from it are among its most staunch opponents.
This is more a message to the leadership of the Democratic Party: man-up. DCCC, DNC, DSCC, we have a chance at electing quality candidates if you would stop letting Fox News hijack the message. The Health Care debate is one of the clearest, most recent examples of this. People STILL believe this legislation will result in the formation of death panels because WE DID NOT CONTROL THE CONVERSATION.
My advice is to be proactive, not reactive. If we have to go on the defensive, it is already too late. Democrats, I know it’s in our nature to be a little more meek and try to appease everyone, but our leadership needs to act like a spoiled only child: BRAG ABOUT YOUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND PREVENT MISINFORMATION FROM DESTROYING YOUR SUCCESS.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Veterans, They Hate America?
It never ceases to amaze me the idiocy that comes out of people’s mouths. Most recently a little quip from a tea-bagger named Sharron Angle.
Angle’s most recent statement? The Veterans of Foreign Wars have betrayed America.
Now let’s wrap our heads around this a little. The people who have sworn to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States of America against enemies foreign and domestic have now betrayed America, the country they have laid down life and limb for? But how might that be?
Well this idiot, who is quoted as saying, "sometimes dictators have good ideas," says the veteran organizations betrayed America by supporting her opposition in the last running race in Nevada amongst others.
Yes the VFW betrayed America for supporting evil villains like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and Ron Klein. Not to say that those ne’er-do-wellers didn’t support veteran interests, unlike the Republican party who has made a pledge to slash veterans benefits.
Yup the VFW betrayed America by supporting candidates that support veterans and not the Republican Party and Tea Baggers.
Funny how the people who always want war are always trying to screw over the veterans that fight the wars for them.
Angle’s most recent statement? The Veterans of Foreign Wars have betrayed America.
Now let’s wrap our heads around this a little. The people who have sworn to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States of America against enemies foreign and domestic have now betrayed America, the country they have laid down life and limb for? But how might that be?
Well this idiot, who is quoted as saying, "sometimes dictators have good ideas," says the veteran organizations betrayed America by supporting her opposition in the last running race in Nevada amongst others.
Yes the VFW betrayed America for supporting evil villains like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and Ron Klein. Not to say that those ne’er-do-wellers didn’t support veteran interests, unlike the Republican party who has made a pledge to slash veterans benefits.
Yup the VFW betrayed America by supporting candidates that support veterans and not the Republican Party and Tea Baggers.
Funny how the people who always want war are always trying to screw over the veterans that fight the wars for them.
Iowa: It's No Longer Heaven
That title is obviously a play on the movie Field of Dreams. The twist comes from the 2010 election, when Iowa voters (read: dipshits) went to the polls and:
a) Voted to remove 3 State Supreme Court Judges who were “pro-gay marriage”
b) Voted a Republican after Republican candidate into office.
The reason move (a) was sad is because the initial decision to legalize gay marriage in Iowa was done unanimously by all NINE State Supreme Court Judges. It's not like the three voted out were "OMG radical liberals," all nine, Conservative and Progressive alike interpreted law as they saw fit, and apparently the law says "Discrimination is bad, mmmkay?" Move (b) was sad is because this week Republicans brought their third groundbreaking piece of legislation to the floor: legalizing a dove hunt in Iowa.
a) Voted to remove 3 State Supreme Court Judges who were “pro-gay marriage”
b) Voted a Republican after Republican candidate into office.
The reason move (a) was sad is because the initial decision to legalize gay marriage in Iowa was done unanimously by all NINE State Supreme Court Judges. It's not like the three voted out were "OMG radical liberals," all nine, Conservative and Progressive alike interpreted law as they saw fit, and apparently the law says "Discrimination is bad, mmmkay?" Move (b) was sad is because this week Republicans brought their third groundbreaking piece of legislation to the floor: legalizing a dove hunt in Iowa.
This follows fast on the heels of their first two VERY IMPORTANT bills: one to amend the state constitution and remove human rights from the state document, and the second to simply remove human rights from state citizens.
To clarify, the first bill was to outlaw gay marriage, and the second an attack on abortion.
And now they introduce the dove hunt. I’m sorry, I meant to write PASSED where I had “introduce,” because that fucker flew through a vote in about 24 hours. Apparently when you have something that is important to the economy, jobs, education and quality of life, you don’t bother writing it up. But when it comes to something simple, like giving people another something to shoot their guns at, yah-hoo! Yeah, that shoots through the system.
I personally can’t wait to see what shit they come up with next.
The only thing you have to fear, is fear itself. Oh, and gays and unions, too.
Americans have a deep rooted belief that our political system is the best in the world. We have mastered democracy, and no other country has a fair and equal representative government like ours. At one point, that may have been true. But today, you don't have to dig very deep to find just how much corruption and manipulation goes on behind the curtains. While the upper elite ruling class pull the strings in our political system, the masses are left fighting over things like gay marriage, health care or teachers collective bargaining rights. When we are scared of anything but the truth, the ruling class could not be happier.
Although, the question of whether fear alone can be used to influence voters is like dirt alone makes trees grow. There are countless ways politicians, campaigns, the media, or our corporate masters can influence voters. Fear can usually prove to be more successful than someone who stands on a stage and tells you the truth. But, isn't that what we want? The truth?
Of course, we all prefer the truth. But, it also seems the truth is something many people have a hard time believing: cue fearful conspiracy theory. In political advertising, a common basic conspiracy theory would include the belief that a series of events are somehow the result of an intentional or covert attempt to prevent certain facts from becoming public knowledge. It makes it very easy for people to believe in lies when they want to believe the lie. How many people believe the teachers unions broke the budget in Wisconsin? How many people are certain that the U.S. government covered up a UFO crash in Roswell, New Mexico? What about the government involvement in the J.F.K. assassination? Iraq was behind 9/11? Was our own government behind 9/11? Did Barack Obama really want your grandmother to go in front of "death panel"? How do we know what is true or false?
Deception through a conspiracy theory can present an illusion that there is a sinister cause of some social, economic, or political problem. We can go back and look at Germany in the early 1930's. Germany was in social and economic chaos resulting from the repressive conditions resulting from the Treaty of Versailles. Through brutal sanctions, it essentially punished Germans for World War I. It had stripped Germany of its industry and infrastructure, denied them trade, or virtually any way of making money. And with the great depression factored in, Germany became very desperate to try anything: cue Adolf Hitler. Hitler’s Nazi party was elected by playing on the widespread fear and anti-semitism of the era, and creating a mass wave of German patriotism through a rapid buildup of military strength. It got people back to work, and in a few short years put Germany in a much better economic position than most of its neighbors. But, despite the short term benefits, we all know the result of Hitler’s use of conspiracies and propaganda.
Nazi German could be used as a "worst case" example of what could happen when a nation is lead to believe rampant conspiracies. The U.S. today is not anything like Nazi Germany, but commonalities do exist. As the public becomes more insecure because of economic reasons, the need for a tangible enemy becomes stronger. Someone facing unemployment would find it easier to blame "BIG government" for their problems than the extremely complicated system of world economics, especially when someone like Glen Beck tells them so. The fact that a TV personality may have an agenda of their own: cue Goldline.com.... and that their agenda would not be beneficial to the unemployed worker watching now becomes irrelevant. The viewer watching now has a tangible enemy.
Fear and conspiracy theories can serve to absolve people of some degree of accountability. If they feel they are now being oppressed by a real enemy, their efforts of improving their situation can seem futile, or just a waste of time. And sadly, in our current 24 hour news cycle, and instant information at the click of a mouse, this cycle of fear can spread very fast. For instance, when Sarah Palin used the term "death panel", it spread like wild fire. The media repeated it nonstop almost immediately.
Ironically, insurance companies do have something similar to a "death panel". How many times have we heard about people with cancer being denied treatment or someone being denied a transplant because of some small detail in their application? Insurance companies are in business to make a profit. To do that, they must take premiums from healthy people, and deny coverage to sick people. But, instead of accepting that truth, we will just blame the scary black man and refer to the part of the bill that gives people that are terminally ill the right to end of life counseling by calling it a death panel.
Anyway, the tactic worked. Almost overnight, a majority of Americans that were in favor of major health care reform were now against it. Nobody took the time to actually read the text of the bill, and find that no such "death panel" exists. You see, that would require time, and real investigative journalism, something that in our immediate information society, many in the media have no time for. Look at an investigative TV show like 60 minutes, or Frontline. They can spend months, sometimes years getting a story out that is factual, unbiased and fair.
The same could be said for print media. How many people read the New York Times anymore? Does anybody remember the affects of Dan Ellsberg's secret release of "the pentagon papers" to the national news papers in the early 1970's? The process took years from when he retrieved the information, released it, the investigations, and then the final result. It helped to bring down then president Nixon and end the war in Vietnam. Could that happen today? Just look at a show today like Bill O'Rielly or any number of politically bias opinion shows or online news sources. By the time a piece of information is fact checked, and sources are interviewed, and the truth is reported, the information has become ancient history. Facts are no longer as important as who can get the information out first. They can apologize in a later broadcast if they reported something that was untrue. Do you think avid Fox viewers payed attention when they later apologized for the palm trees in Madison? Or mixing up the statistics on how 62% of people were actually supporting the Wisconsin public unions, but they said 62% opposed. Honest mistakes, right?
Not to say that our problems now are new. In a University of Oklahoma study by George Mann in 1989, he notes that "...the prevalent use of sophisticated advertising techniques in political campaigns presents a great danger, for citizens can be manipulated to make political decisions out of emotion rather than rational thought. People must be provided with the educational tools needed to detect the bias, distortion, and other tactics used to influence them. The social studies curriculum can provide students with the skills needed to detect bias that will allow them to make good decisions and thus become better citizens." In other words, I think he was not blaming the media. He was putting the focus more on education. So why would anyone want to cut the budget for education or for teachers?
Many Americans tend to believe that the worst thing that can result from the lack of skill in detecting bias in advertising is that some people might purchase products that are unneeded or inferior. However, media specialists have now expanded their markets, it’s not just products, it’s now politics. The skills developed years ago on Madison Avenue to sell Americans tooth paste are now being used to sell political ideologies and candidates. These clever techniques influence our political views and our politicians’ decisions. We should not allow groups or individuals with large amounts of money, like the Koch boys, to employ skilled advertising agencies to manipulate citizens into adopting certain ideologies or supporting certain candidates, but with the recent Citizens United case in the U.S. Supreme court, money is considered free speech. The more money your candidate or campaign or supporter has, the more "free speech" you have.
A recent study at Ohio State University suggests that instead of manipulation or education, the blame should be more on passive reporting. It found that "...people are more likely to doubt their own ability to determine the truth in politics after reading an article that simply lists competing claims without offering any idea of which side is actually correct. There are consequences to journalists that just report what each side says with no fact checking." When citizens feel like they can't figure out what the truth is, that attitude can lead many people to tune out politics completely. For citizens to really choose between government policies or candidates is not like choosing flavors of ice cream. The answers to our political debates need to be centered on facts.
In a country as politically split as ours, the goal of a candidate or politician is now only to win over a very small group of people. Liberals and conservatives have done a good job over the last generation of polarizing their bases. It’s the group in the middle that they fight for. Independent America. In a winner take all political system, all you need is one more vote than your opponent. Why spend all your money and resources campaigning on facts? 20% to 30% of the people are going to vote for you just because you say you are a democrat, or a republican. 20% to 30% will never vote for you because of the same thing. Half of the electorate no longer matters. This is when candidates really need to one up their opponent to get that one extra vote. And they will do anything to get it. One side will tell you the other is going to take your guns. Or maybe invoke religion into their campaign. Maybe they will tell you that your support of gay rights or women's rights is somehow going against God? Maybe they will run an ad with actors playing Vietnam swift boat veterans who denounce a candidate that was a Vietnam swift boat veteran?
There seems to be no sign that the trend of influencing voters through fear and emotion will slow down anytime soon. What the hell can we do? Term limits? Public financing of campaigns? Real campaign reform to bring to light who is actually paying the tab for a candidate? Taking to the streets in large protests? Lately, it seems that protesting maybe the only way to make our voices heard. The best thing we can all do is stay informed. Take the time to research politicians and policies. The truth is there, it never went away, and we are just being forced to work harder to find it. When the next election or controversial bill comes around, they will know that people are not going to fact check every little sound bite that comes out. So they will use human psychology, and tell you what you want to hear. Or, they will prey on our own basic instincts, and tell you to be scared of something that you have never even heard of. Or be scared of the government! Be scared of the poor! Be scared of the gays! Be scared of unions! Be scared of health care! Be scared of taxes, because if the rich have to pay higher taxes, they might not hire you! Don't let these things scare you. They want you to be scared of something so you forget about how bad the upper 1% is screwing you. THEY need to be scared of YOU!
Although, the question of whether fear alone can be used to influence voters is like dirt alone makes trees grow. There are countless ways politicians, campaigns, the media, or our corporate masters can influence voters. Fear can usually prove to be more successful than someone who stands on a stage and tells you the truth. But, isn't that what we want? The truth?
Of course, we all prefer the truth. But, it also seems the truth is something many people have a hard time believing: cue fearful conspiracy theory. In political advertising, a common basic conspiracy theory would include the belief that a series of events are somehow the result of an intentional or covert attempt to prevent certain facts from becoming public knowledge. It makes it very easy for people to believe in lies when they want to believe the lie. How many people believe the teachers unions broke the budget in Wisconsin? How many people are certain that the U.S. government covered up a UFO crash in Roswell, New Mexico? What about the government involvement in the J.F.K. assassination? Iraq was behind 9/11? Was our own government behind 9/11? Did Barack Obama really want your grandmother to go in front of "death panel"? How do we know what is true or false?
Deception through a conspiracy theory can present an illusion that there is a sinister cause of some social, economic, or political problem. We can go back and look at Germany in the early 1930's. Germany was in social and economic chaos resulting from the repressive conditions resulting from the Treaty of Versailles. Through brutal sanctions, it essentially punished Germans for World War I. It had stripped Germany of its industry and infrastructure, denied them trade, or virtually any way of making money. And with the great depression factored in, Germany became very desperate to try anything: cue Adolf Hitler. Hitler’s Nazi party was elected by playing on the widespread fear and anti-semitism of the era, and creating a mass wave of German patriotism through a rapid buildup of military strength. It got people back to work, and in a few short years put Germany in a much better economic position than most of its neighbors. But, despite the short term benefits, we all know the result of Hitler’s use of conspiracies and propaganda.
Nazi German could be used as a "worst case" example of what could happen when a nation is lead to believe rampant conspiracies. The U.S. today is not anything like Nazi Germany, but commonalities do exist. As the public becomes more insecure because of economic reasons, the need for a tangible enemy becomes stronger. Someone facing unemployment would find it easier to blame "BIG government" for their problems than the extremely complicated system of world economics, especially when someone like Glen Beck tells them so. The fact that a TV personality may have an agenda of their own: cue Goldline.com.... and that their agenda would not be beneficial to the unemployed worker watching now becomes irrelevant. The viewer watching now has a tangible enemy.
Fear and conspiracy theories can serve to absolve people of some degree of accountability. If they feel they are now being oppressed by a real enemy, their efforts of improving their situation can seem futile, or just a waste of time. And sadly, in our current 24 hour news cycle, and instant information at the click of a mouse, this cycle of fear can spread very fast. For instance, when Sarah Palin used the term "death panel", it spread like wild fire. The media repeated it nonstop almost immediately.
Ironically, insurance companies do have something similar to a "death panel". How many times have we heard about people with cancer being denied treatment or someone being denied a transplant because of some small detail in their application? Insurance companies are in business to make a profit. To do that, they must take premiums from healthy people, and deny coverage to sick people. But, instead of accepting that truth, we will just blame the scary black man and refer to the part of the bill that gives people that are terminally ill the right to end of life counseling by calling it a death panel.
Anyway, the tactic worked. Almost overnight, a majority of Americans that were in favor of major health care reform were now against it. Nobody took the time to actually read the text of the bill, and find that no such "death panel" exists. You see, that would require time, and real investigative journalism, something that in our immediate information society, many in the media have no time for. Look at an investigative TV show like 60 minutes, or Frontline. They can spend months, sometimes years getting a story out that is factual, unbiased and fair.
The same could be said for print media. How many people read the New York Times anymore? Does anybody remember the affects of Dan Ellsberg's secret release of "the pentagon papers" to the national news papers in the early 1970's? The process took years from when he retrieved the information, released it, the investigations, and then the final result. It helped to bring down then president Nixon and end the war in Vietnam. Could that happen today? Just look at a show today like Bill O'Rielly or any number of politically bias opinion shows or online news sources. By the time a piece of information is fact checked, and sources are interviewed, and the truth is reported, the information has become ancient history. Facts are no longer as important as who can get the information out first. They can apologize in a later broadcast if they reported something that was untrue. Do you think avid Fox viewers payed attention when they later apologized for the palm trees in Madison? Or mixing up the statistics on how 62% of people were actually supporting the Wisconsin public unions, but they said 62% opposed. Honest mistakes, right?
Not to say that our problems now are new. In a University of Oklahoma study by George Mann in 1989, he notes that "...the prevalent use of sophisticated advertising techniques in political campaigns presents a great danger, for citizens can be manipulated to make political decisions out of emotion rather than rational thought. People must be provided with the educational tools needed to detect the bias, distortion, and other tactics used to influence them. The social studies curriculum can provide students with the skills needed to detect bias that will allow them to make good decisions and thus become better citizens." In other words, I think he was not blaming the media. He was putting the focus more on education. So why would anyone want to cut the budget for education or for teachers?
Many Americans tend to believe that the worst thing that can result from the lack of skill in detecting bias in advertising is that some people might purchase products that are unneeded or inferior. However, media specialists have now expanded their markets, it’s not just products, it’s now politics. The skills developed years ago on Madison Avenue to sell Americans tooth paste are now being used to sell political ideologies and candidates. These clever techniques influence our political views and our politicians’ decisions. We should not allow groups or individuals with large amounts of money, like the Koch boys, to employ skilled advertising agencies to manipulate citizens into adopting certain ideologies or supporting certain candidates, but with the recent Citizens United case in the U.S. Supreme court, money is considered free speech. The more money your candidate or campaign or supporter has, the more "free speech" you have.
A recent study at Ohio State University suggests that instead of manipulation or education, the blame should be more on passive reporting. It found that "...people are more likely to doubt their own ability to determine the truth in politics after reading an article that simply lists competing claims without offering any idea of which side is actually correct. There are consequences to journalists that just report what each side says with no fact checking." When citizens feel like they can't figure out what the truth is, that attitude can lead many people to tune out politics completely. For citizens to really choose between government policies or candidates is not like choosing flavors of ice cream. The answers to our political debates need to be centered on facts.
In a country as politically split as ours, the goal of a candidate or politician is now only to win over a very small group of people. Liberals and conservatives have done a good job over the last generation of polarizing their bases. It’s the group in the middle that they fight for. Independent America. In a winner take all political system, all you need is one more vote than your opponent. Why spend all your money and resources campaigning on facts? 20% to 30% of the people are going to vote for you just because you say you are a democrat, or a republican. 20% to 30% will never vote for you because of the same thing. Half of the electorate no longer matters. This is when candidates really need to one up their opponent to get that one extra vote. And they will do anything to get it. One side will tell you the other is going to take your guns. Or maybe invoke religion into their campaign. Maybe they will tell you that your support of gay rights or women's rights is somehow going against God? Maybe they will run an ad with actors playing Vietnam swift boat veterans who denounce a candidate that was a Vietnam swift boat veteran?
There seems to be no sign that the trend of influencing voters through fear and emotion will slow down anytime soon. What the hell can we do? Term limits? Public financing of campaigns? Real campaign reform to bring to light who is actually paying the tab for a candidate? Taking to the streets in large protests? Lately, it seems that protesting maybe the only way to make our voices heard. The best thing we can all do is stay informed. Take the time to research politicians and policies. The truth is there, it never went away, and we are just being forced to work harder to find it. When the next election or controversial bill comes around, they will know that people are not going to fact check every little sound bite that comes out. So they will use human psychology, and tell you what you want to hear. Or, they will prey on our own basic instincts, and tell you to be scared of something that you have never even heard of. Or be scared of the government! Be scared of the poor! Be scared of the gays! Be scared of unions! Be scared of health care! Be scared of taxes, because if the rich have to pay higher taxes, they might not hire you! Don't let these things scare you. They want you to be scared of something so you forget about how bad the upper 1% is screwing you. THEY need to be scared of YOU!
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
How I learned to Love the Bomb
If you've a facebook account, odds are likely at some point in the last two weeks, you've seen Japan mentioned in that status of another. Usually followed by something extremely ignorant such as "Did Japan send aid after Katrina?" or "This makes up for Pearl Habor". Though to both, Japan did send aid after Katrina numbering in the millions of dollars as for the Pearl Habor comment, we did send that country a little present we Americans with affection dubbed Fat Man and Little Boy. A little something that by modern standards would be considered a war crime but still, its ok were Americans.
Lets take a look at the facts, the Japanese and American economies were very much intertwined, not to mention American military assets in and around Japan. Then after near nothing, one of the biggest economies in the world destroyed, this was the fall of a world leader, not a third world country that so dominates the news. People died by the thousands, left without food, water, shelter, pending further disaster based on what happens at a few nuclear plants, and some people have the audicity to demean the pitance we as Americans offer Japan in their time of apocalypse.
But hey, its cool right? At least we got to drop bombs on Ghadaffi.
Lets take a look at the facts, the Japanese and American economies were very much intertwined, not to mention American military assets in and around Japan. Then after near nothing, one of the biggest economies in the world destroyed, this was the fall of a world leader, not a third world country that so dominates the news. People died by the thousands, left without food, water, shelter, pending further disaster based on what happens at a few nuclear plants, and some people have the audicity to demean the pitance we as Americans offer Japan in their time of apocalypse.
But hey, its cool right? At least we got to drop bombs on Ghadaffi.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Education before Incarceration
I did a little research... still researching... and found some interesting and frustrating things out. The order to increase health care spending on prisoners came from the supreme court. The story is that the state was mandated to release 46,000 prisoners due to overcrowding. It has been established by a law firm in Berkeley that The prisoners rights by the 8th amendment are being violated and that the lack of health care is "cruel and unusual punishment" The fed's answer was to release 46,000 inmates, but the state's response is to instead, increase the spending on health care for the state's prisons, stating the fed's do not run state prisons. I'm still reading... but this law firm in Berkeley is really upsetting. You know what that town needs? An Earthquake and subsequent fire. Those Lawyers are so dense, they think they're protecting prisoners and youth, but really they're allowing prisons to stay overpopulated by increasing the chances for young people to get into trouble instead of getting an education. It's even more upsetting to see their website claiming to be a "nonprofit, tax exempt firm." See More
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/1130/California-at-Supreme-Court-fights-judicial-order-on-prison-overcrowding
www.prisonlaw.com and the director is Donald Specter
Although roughly 40% of the state budget is dedicated to education, the state spends only $7,500 per pupil, and $47,000 per inmate. California has the most students of any other state, and has 2 million students more than the next largest Texas. Yet, California is about $2,200 below the national average per pupil spending in education. On the other hand, California is at the very top of spending for prisons by a gap of $6.3 billion. California 2008 general funds for corrections spending was at 9.6 billion, while Texas and Florida trailed for 2nd and 3rd highest spending at 2.9 and 2.8 billion respectively. (Keep in mind that we are about 5th in the percentage of general fund spending since California has(had) more money in its general fund than the other states in 2008.)
**This information came from http://www.examiner.com/k-12-in-san-francisco/california-spends-7-500-per-student-and-a-whopping-47-000-per-prisoner-you-do-the-math
And from searching "national average per inmate spending" and opening the first PDF document that comes up, which happens to be a very interesting study on corrections reform.
Another note, another argument: California's prison population is 11% illegal aliens. That is about 19,000 of the 170,000 individuals incarcerated in the states prison system. http://www.sacbee.com/2010/05/23/2770397/just-the-facts-whitman-overstates.html
The bottom line is that we are spending way too much money on prisoners and not enough on our students. Does anybody realize that if we are proactive and give our students the best chance at success while their minds are still young, and teach them how to be productive upstanding citizens, we won't lose so many of them in the future to crimes that land them in the prisons?! Obviously there must be a correlation of educating and empowering children to make good decisions in life, instead of tossing them aside and then paying for them later when they land themselves in prison. Come on people... education before incarceration. It's that simple.
-Caitlin Dalby
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/1130/California-at-Supreme-Court-fights-judicial-order-on-prison-overcrowding
www.prisonlaw.com and the director is Donald Specter
Although roughly 40% of the state budget is dedicated to education, the state spends only $7,500 per pupil, and $47,000 per inmate. California has the most students of any other state, and has 2 million students more than the next largest Texas. Yet, California is about $2,200 below the national average per pupil spending in education. On the other hand, California is at the very top of spending for prisons by a gap of $6.3 billion. California 2008 general funds for corrections spending was at 9.6 billion, while Texas and Florida trailed for 2nd and 3rd highest spending at 2.9 and 2.8 billion respectively. (Keep in mind that we are about 5th in the percentage of general fund spending since California has(had) more money in its general fund than the other states in 2008.)
**This information came from http://www.examiner.com/k-12-in-san-francisco/california-spends-7-500-per-student-and-a-whopping-47-000-per-prisoner-you-do-the-math
And from searching "national average per inmate spending" and opening the first PDF document that comes up, which happens to be a very interesting study on corrections reform.
Another note, another argument: California's prison population is 11% illegal aliens. That is about 19,000 of the 170,000 individuals incarcerated in the states prison system. http://www.sacbee.com/2010/05/23/2770397/just-the-facts-whitman-overstates.html
The bottom line is that we are spending way too much money on prisoners and not enough on our students. Does anybody realize that if we are proactive and give our students the best chance at success while their minds are still young, and teach them how to be productive upstanding citizens, we won't lose so many of them in the future to crimes that land them in the prisons?! Obviously there must be a correlation of educating and empowering children to make good decisions in life, instead of tossing them aside and then paying for them later when they land themselves in prison. Come on people... education before incarceration. It's that simple.
-Caitlin Dalby
The Man Who Would Be King
Rick Ungar says it better than I ever could, but I'll try anyway.
Laws such as the one recently passed in Michigan are in no uncertain terms, un-American. One of the most egregious practices by colonial government in what would become the United States was the dismissal of elected bodies by Royal governors in several states and simply proclaimed new laws without the input of the people. In fact, this practice is referenced in the Declaration of Independence:
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
And the governor of Michigan asked for and has received that power. This law will allow Rick Snyder to dismiss elected governments facing fiscal problems and hand over the day to day operations of school districts, cities, and counties to private companies not accountable to the people they are supposed to serve.
The people of Michigan were misled into voting for this small fraction of a man who had cultivated a reputation as a moderate. He was referred to as a RINO. The people of Michigan voted for an authoritarian the likes of which the Americas have not seen since the 1700s.
What is more upsetting is the fact that the national media has not been devoting significant time to covering this law. Michael Moore is really the only person I've heard discuss it. Perhaps the media's resources are focused too much on ongoing events in Libya.
I'm reminded of a quote by Thomas Jefferson:
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
People must stand up against against tyranny wherever it exists, whether that be Libya or Lansing.
Laws such as the one recently passed in Michigan are in no uncertain terms, un-American. One of the most egregious practices by colonial government in what would become the United States was the dismissal of elected bodies by Royal governors in several states and simply proclaimed new laws without the input of the people. In fact, this practice is referenced in the Declaration of Independence:
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
And the governor of Michigan asked for and has received that power. This law will allow Rick Snyder to dismiss elected governments facing fiscal problems and hand over the day to day operations of school districts, cities, and counties to private companies not accountable to the people they are supposed to serve.
The people of Michigan were misled into voting for this small fraction of a man who had cultivated a reputation as a moderate. He was referred to as a RINO. The people of Michigan voted for an authoritarian the likes of which the Americas have not seen since the 1700s.
What is more upsetting is the fact that the national media has not been devoting significant time to covering this law. Michael Moore is really the only person I've heard discuss it. Perhaps the media's resources are focused too much on ongoing events in Libya.
I'm reminded of a quote by Thomas Jefferson:
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
People must stand up against against tyranny wherever it exists, whether that be Libya or Lansing.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Brownback and his Pet Project: Repopulating Rural Kansas
You know, there’s a reason why rural
When Opportunity Knocks, Do Nothing.
Much like the golden opportunity that was missed by the Bush Administration to start a conversation with Iran, President Obama is missing out on a chance to make the U.S. look good in the Middle East.
Now, this isn’t an issue of saying hey lets go to war with Libya and its crazed mad hatter of a leader Muammar Qaddafi, but a minimal effort at best would bring the U.S. some good light in the region. Mid East relations have always been tense for us, and they haven’t been getting better with the unjustified Iraq War.
However when people are crying out to the international community for help much like this woman did, well than hey, maybe we should get involved instead of standing idly by.
I’m not saying a full scale invasion, but our special operations community has the tool and capabilities to arm a people, and help them much like the action taken in Afghanistan. We could have armed and trained and assisted the Libyan people into taking their country back.
Now we have implemented a no fly zone, but this seems too little too late. That woman’s plea for help was on February 25. The no fly zone was just implanted yesterday and Qaddaffi has more than pushed back the rebels from their hold on the country.
Our reaction should have been quicker instead of pussyfooting around and being worried about how we get looked at. Our chance to save lives and look like the good guys again has been missed out. I prefer democrats over republicans, but I have to say, when it comes to stuff like this at least Republicans get shit done. Of course that would only happen because they have a business interest in Libya.
Now, this isn’t an issue of saying hey lets go to war with Libya and its crazed mad hatter of a leader Muammar Qaddafi, but a minimal effort at best would bring the U.S. some good light in the region. Mid East relations have always been tense for us, and they haven’t been getting better with the unjustified Iraq War.
However when people are crying out to the international community for help much like this woman did, well than hey, maybe we should get involved instead of standing idly by.
I’m not saying a full scale invasion, but our special operations community has the tool and capabilities to arm a people, and help them much like the action taken in Afghanistan. We could have armed and trained and assisted the Libyan people into taking their country back.
Now we have implemented a no fly zone, but this seems too little too late. That woman’s plea for help was on February 25. The no fly zone was just implanted yesterday and Qaddaffi has more than pushed back the rebels from their hold on the country.
Our reaction should have been quicker instead of pussyfooting around and being worried about how we get looked at. Our chance to save lives and look like the good guys again has been missed out. I prefer democrats over republicans, but I have to say, when it comes to stuff like this at least Republicans get shit done. Of course that would only happen because they have a business interest in Libya.
Waiting for Superman
All lips are hushed, the same thought on everyone's mind. The system is broken. Thieves and liars hold sway in dark chambers where they facilitate laws that only embolden their own greed. Nobody talks about it, every day a little more of our pride, freedoms, and futures are taken from us. We know it, and though we dont believe the lies that justify it, we do nothing.
That is the American Way. We do nothing.
Relentless, we spend hours watching the stories of others who rose above their circumstances and overcame. Hours watching mythic heroes, larger then life themselves capable of anything using the same tools available to our lowest citizen. Those who don't watch listen. Listen to the dull voice of a priest or pastor, preaching against vice while promising salvation that some absent God will interfere in our lives to right all the wrongs in the world.
Fictions. All wrong.
The dead know best, no one is coming to save you.
Unbind your hands. Don't wait for Superman, he's not coming.
That is the American Way. We do nothing.
Relentless, we spend hours watching the stories of others who rose above their circumstances and overcame. Hours watching mythic heroes, larger then life themselves capable of anything using the same tools available to our lowest citizen. Those who don't watch listen. Listen to the dull voice of a priest or pastor, preaching against vice while promising salvation that some absent God will interfere in our lives to right all the wrongs in the world.
Fictions. All wrong.
The dead know best, no one is coming to save you.
Unbind your hands. Don't wait for Superman, he's not coming.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
American Thinker? False advertising, I say!
I was browsing around the intertubes, hoping to find some gem to focus my attentions on for my inaugural post when *BOOM!*, I was sucked into the black hole of inanity that is the American "Thinker". Yes, we're using the word thinker in the most loosest of terms. What truly caught my eye was the title: "It's Time For Gays To Get Married", a bit of truth hammered out by one such Bill Flax. After I was done double-taking myself into a trip to a chiropractor that my insurance doesn't cover, I braced myself for the complete 180 I was sure to encounter.
I'm going to skip to the end - there's just entirely too much thinkin' going on over at Señor Flax's Den of 100% Pure Heterosexuality.
According to Mr. Flax, it would seem that as a woman, I have no right to expect that the man who “takes” me in matrimony actually wants to fuck me. I should content myself in knowing that my ultimate role in marriage is to serve as a boner killer for my husband, such that he can no longer bring himself to indulge his "true desires". Apparently, gays would not be so gay if only they had a steady diet of vagina, although all signs indicate that they, themselves, aren’t all that fond of vagina?
So all of you out there, fighting those urges, just remember: You may think you know who you are, but you really don't! You just don't know any better.
It makes my head hurt.
Which brings me to my final thought, a question that truly begs to be asked: Is this just your simple, garden-variety misogyny, or, more tragically, another attempt by Flax and those like him to convince others that his own sex life is totally heteronormative?
Gays have every bit as much right to get married as you or I. And in fact, they should.What, what, what?! Next thing you tell me, David Brooks will giving up his cushy NYT column in favor of spending his time volunteering for the ACLU. Did I somehow miss the press release announcing that Rush has finally said FUCK IT, and waddled his tubby ass to Betty Ford? It's topsy turvy!
A homosexual man has an identical right to take a woman in holy matrimony as may any other man. Likewise, the rest of us have just as little right to take some guy and pronounce him a bride. This isn’t a question of differing rights. Our rights remain in perfect symmetry. Homosexuals are now and always have been permitted to marry.And anti-miscegenation statutes didn’t discriminate either! Blacks had the same right to marry someone of their own race as whites did. I really don't see what all the fuss is about.
I'm going to skip to the end - there's just entirely too much thinkin' going on over at Señor Flax's Den of 100% Pure Heterosexuality.
Marriage is and must always remain one man and one woman. Rather than seek to undermine such a foundational institution necessary for healthy society, homosexuals ought to get married. Marriage would temper their urges and channel their desires into something beneficial for both them and society at large.Because that worked out so well for Rock Hudson.
According to Mr. Flax, it would seem that as a woman, I have no right to expect that the man who “takes” me in matrimony actually wants to fuck me. I should content myself in knowing that my ultimate role in marriage is to serve as a boner killer for my husband, such that he can no longer bring himself to indulge his "true desires". Apparently, gays would not be so gay if only they had a steady diet of vagina, although all signs indicate that they, themselves, aren’t all that fond of vagina?
So all of you out there, fighting those urges, just remember: You may think you know who you are, but you really don't! You just don't know any better.
It makes my head hurt.
Which brings me to my final thought, a question that truly begs to be asked: Is this just your simple, garden-variety misogyny, or, more tragically, another attempt by Flax and those like him to convince others that his own sex life is totally heteronormative?
Snooki and the SATs
Apparently, there has been a great deal of moral outrage regarding SAT testing recently. Several years ago, the College Board added an essay portion in order to gauge the writing ability and critical thinking skills of students. This essay portion has been highly controversial as it can allegedly be gamed.
The most recent controversy surrounds the choice of essay prompt on a recent version of the SAT. Students were asked to write an essay using this prompt:
Reality television programs, which feature real people engaged in real activities rather than professional actors performing scripted scenes, are increasingly popular. These shows depict ordinary people competing in everything from singing and dancing to losing weight, or just living their everyday lives. Most people believe that the reality these shows portray is authentic, but they are being misled. How authentic can these shows be when producers design challenges for the participants and then editors alter filmed scenes?
Do people benefit from forms of entertainment that show so-called reality, or are such forms of entertainment harmful?
Several test-takers were quite upset by this prompt. The problem is, students did not need to have any knowledge of reality television to write a good essay. The prompt asks the writer to evaluate a form of low culture. The prompt could just as easily ask about blaxploitation films or pornography. The prompt is not about the cultural relevance of The Apprentice or American Idol. The prompt is intended to gauge the ability of the test-taker to make evaluative statements regarding the societal impacts of mass culture, which is a legitimate academic undertaking and something they'll be expected to to at any university.
The most recent controversy surrounds the choice of essay prompt on a recent version of the SAT. Students were asked to write an essay using this prompt:
Reality television programs, which feature real people engaged in real activities rather than professional actors performing scripted scenes, are increasingly popular. These shows depict ordinary people competing in everything from singing and dancing to losing weight, or just living their everyday lives. Most people believe that the reality these shows portray is authentic, but they are being misled. How authentic can these shows be when producers design challenges for the participants and then editors alter filmed scenes?
Do people benefit from forms of entertainment that show so-called reality, or are such forms of entertainment harmful?
Several test-takers were quite upset by this prompt. The problem is, students did not need to have any knowledge of reality television to write a good essay. The prompt asks the writer to evaluate a form of low culture. The prompt could just as easily ask about blaxploitation films or pornography. The prompt is not about the cultural relevance of The Apprentice or American Idol. The prompt is intended to gauge the ability of the test-taker to make evaluative statements regarding the societal impacts of mass culture, which is a legitimate academic undertaking and something they'll be expected to to at any university.
Distraction is a Beautiful Thing
In the movie Gladiator, Joaquin Phoenix played Commodus, described in Wikipedia as "a vain, power hungry and sociopathic young man." When told by his father that though next in line for power, he will not wear the crown and that the Senate, a governing body of the people will rule, Joaquin commits patricide. He seizes control of the country, and distracts the masses by re-establishing the Gladiator games, something deemed too barbaric by the father he just displaced.
Today, the Republican majority in Congress voted, almost exclusively along party lines, to de-fund National Public Radio. They will say it is because they are deficit hawks, but this is a lie. Several weeks ago, the very same Republican members of Congress voted to continue funding NASCAR. This means they are at best hypocrites, or at worst outright liars. Sadly, "liars" is the scarlet letter they should be brandished with, for there is an absolute parallel between the fictional Gladiator and the all too real gutting of the nations most important news source.
NASCAR is a distraction; NPR is educational. Every election season, the Republican party runs on an agenda of fear and hatred: Gay people want to marry, and that's sinful! Illegals (read: Mexicans) are taking good (read: White) jobs! The baby Jesus is sad because women want full rights over their own bodies. One reason Republicans despise the Phelps family is because The Westboro Baptist Church says the same things they do, only in a less veiled manner. Republicans have to denounce the Phelps message, because if they don't, people might figure out the content is the same, it's just the words that are different.
So, how do you keep the masses from figuring out such shenanigans? As Gladiator showed us: distraction. You cut the funding for NPR, and in Wisconsin be brazen enough to attack teachers. You take away the avenues with which the public can either be educated or educate themselves, and then you distract them by funding NASCAR. When pretty cars drive in a circle, all is well in the world... don't look behind the curtain; Big Brother will take care of you, all while pointing their finger at the other party and decrying their "autocratic agenda."
If it wasn't so evil, it'd almost have to be respected.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
A Broken Clock is Right Twice a Day
It’s probably more American to despise Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church than it is to like them. I have yet to meet someone who thinks, “Oh, Fred Phelps, yeah I think he’s a great guy”; I have yet to know anyone who “likes” him on Facebook (if there is a Facebook fan page, I refuse to check on principle). I do, however, know multiple people who cannot stand the man and think he is doing more harm to Christianity than good. I’ll even argue that his supreme hatred for gays, and the media’s attention of it, has probably brought more acceptance of gays and lesbians than achieving the goal set out by the Phelps clan. It’s just a theory, nothing to test out. It is fun to think about it like that though- here this man who hates a group of people so much, that his hatred is actually helping them by being unreasonably malicious.
It kills me to say this, but when the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Westboro Baptist Church 8-1 in the case Phelps vs. Snyder, I agreed with their decision. In case you have been living under a rock these past couple of years, the Westboro clan have made a name for themselves picketing the funerals of soldiers killed in combat with signs saying things like “God Hates Fags” or Semper Fi Fags.” Yeah, they’re real class acts. Albert Snyder’s situation was no different. He had lost his son in combat and at his son’s burial, he was picketed by Westboro Baptist Church. The picketers followed the law and protested the appropriate 1,000 feet distance away from the funeral. Mr. Snyder sued Westboro and won a lawsuit for $5 million dollars. This was thrown out by the appellate judge and now made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
One of the interesting thing about this case is that Mr. Snyder never saw the protests during the funeral. It was afterwards, when he saw the TV coverage of the event that he saw the signs and decided to sue. This is one of the main reasons why I supported Justices’ decision. If he had seen these events during the funeral, I could understand and partly sided with him. It wasn’t until later that he noticed it and then sued. Had he seen it during the funeral, I could see more of the Justices siding with Justice Alito, the lone dissenter.
It's weird to say I side with Westboro Baptist Church, but it’s even weirder when I agree with Justice Roberts. Justice Roberts writes, "Westboro addressed matters of public import on public property, in a peaceful manner, in full compliance with the guidance of local officials." He continues with, "The placards highlighted issues of public import -- the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of the nation, homosexuality in the military and scandals involving the Catholic clergy -- and Westboro conveyed its views on those issues in a manner designed to reach as broad a public audience as possible.” Even though the court acknowledged that they were hurtful, the truth is they weren’t directed at the family and they weren’t concerning private matters. They were discussing issues that are relevant to the public and not necessarily to the family. They were using the attention and the shock of protesting to benefit their cause.
Is picketing a funeral with signs of vitriolic hate wrong? In my opinion yes, it is. Is it protected? Now it is, but from what I can tell, the laws restricting them to a certain distance away are still in place. The decision to me had more to do with the lawsuit than the actual laws restraining the picketing. The beauty of free speech is that we can say things about our society in the most ludicrious way and it's protected. I might not like what they say, but do they have a right to say it? Yes, they do. I only wonder what the outcome of this case would have been if it was a stronger case. What if the son was a gay soldier? Would it have changed the outcome? A part of me would like to think so. A part of me hates that the Phelps Clan won this one (his daughter actually argued in front of the Supreme Court, not him). The hatred this man has spewed over the years is ridiculous. The things he has said about Matthew Sheppard is enough to make anyone hate him. I have to tell myself that I agree with the Court’s decision, not with Phelps.
Even though I have strongly disliked Westboro Baptist Church and Mr. Phelps, I have done everything in my power to fight them the best way I know how- ignoring them. This will be the only time that I will write about them. I don’t feel like they are worth any more time and attention than this article is worth. Also, if we as a nation stop talking about them, then maybe, just maybe, they will go off into obscurity and never be heard from again. Maybe in a couple of months, once the attention from this case has died down, we can go back to not caring what the Phelps Clan has to say.
Wisconsin Republicans Backpedalling?
Hey we’re going to continue to be assholes, wait no we’re not, yes we are. Hey let’s compromise, wait a second, we don’t have too, never mind j/k.
Wisconsin Republicans are having a change of heart. They will give democrats the right to vote in the state senate after saying they couldn’t as the democrats we still in “contempt.”
Those recall petitions must be getting them nervous. And I thought this was the party that didn’t backpedal, stood their ground, and went from the gut. Apparently that’s only when it best serves and I’m thinking they’re regretting taking away workers rights in Wisconsin.
Afternoon Serenity - 3/16/11
* How to Win at March Madness Bracketology
For the compulsive gambler/non-basketball fan out there, this is a statistical breakdown of ESPN's pros vs joes picks for the NCAA Men's Tournament, and which teams are most likely to win you that office pool. Hell, it beats throwing darts or praying for divine epiphany.
* Buffalo Bills Forgo Layoffs For Pay Cuts
These are the real victims of the NFL's ongoing collective bargaining agreement and subsequent lockout. On the bright side the biggest cuts will come from the people with the highest salary, as opposed to most companies, who would sack the underlings to preserve their way of life.
* Eastwood Movie Understandably Pulled in Japan
Clint Eastwood's latest offering Hereafter has been yanked a few weeks early from the 180 theaters showing it due to content: it contains a fairly intense scene where a tsunami (namely, the 2004 Indian Ocean one) slams into a Thai city. The film was released on DVD in North America yesterday.
* The Next Twitter?
As social media evolves and the world gets ever-smaller, there's a persistent drive by software developers to strike gold in being the next Linkedin, Twitter, etc. The trick is to find a niche not-yet-reached, and Scvngr, Hashable, and Instagram seek to do just that.
* Italian Prime Minister Might Be a Bond Villain
Silvio Berlusconi is quite possibly the world's most corrupt politician. Really. Like, on a level that mocks even the slimiest of U.S. power brokers. And yet, he keeps getting re-elected.
* Does $63,000,000 at Least Get You in First Class?
The U.S. will pony up roughly $63 million dollars per seat to Russia to schlep astronauts to and from orbit over the next four years, filling the gap left by the retiring space shuttle program.
* Fist Pumping Not Included
The turntable/mixer app appropriately named Djay has been released onto iPhone and iPad. It's essentially a clone of the Mac version of the software, save it doesn't allow for key modification. Now the only thing that stands between you and a self-DJ'd party is air and opportunity... and perhaps a spray tan.
* Be Sure to Empty the Glass First
Smartphone goes into glass. Reception improves. Can't explain that!
For the compulsive gambler/non-basketball fan out there, this is a statistical breakdown of ESPN's pros vs joes picks for the NCAA Men's Tournament, and which teams are most likely to win you that office pool. Hell, it beats throwing darts or praying for divine epiphany.
* Buffalo Bills Forgo Layoffs For Pay Cuts
These are the real victims of the NFL's ongoing collective bargaining agreement and subsequent lockout. On the bright side the biggest cuts will come from the people with the highest salary, as opposed to most companies, who would sack the underlings to preserve their way of life.
* Eastwood Movie Understandably Pulled in Japan
Clint Eastwood's latest offering Hereafter has been yanked a few weeks early from the 180 theaters showing it due to content: it contains a fairly intense scene where a tsunami (namely, the 2004 Indian Ocean one) slams into a Thai city. The film was released on DVD in North America yesterday.
* The Next Twitter?
As social media evolves and the world gets ever-smaller, there's a persistent drive by software developers to strike gold in being the next Linkedin, Twitter, etc. The trick is to find a niche not-yet-reached, and Scvngr, Hashable, and Instagram seek to do just that.
* Italian Prime Minister Might Be a Bond Villain
Silvio Berlusconi is quite possibly the world's most corrupt politician. Really. Like, on a level that mocks even the slimiest of U.S. power brokers. And yet, he keeps getting re-elected.
* Does $63,000,000 at Least Get You in First Class?
The U.S. will pony up roughly $63 million dollars per seat to Russia to schlep astronauts to and from orbit over the next four years, filling the gap left by the retiring space shuttle program.
* Fist Pumping Not Included
The turntable/mixer app appropriately named Djay has been released onto iPhone and iPad. It's essentially a clone of the Mac version of the software, save it doesn't allow for key modification. Now the only thing that stands between you and a self-DJ'd party is air and opportunity... and perhaps a spray tan.
* Be Sure to Empty the Glass First
Smartphone goes into glass. Reception improves. Can't explain that!
The American Dream
Imagine.
White Male.
Republican.
Old and graying with age, pushing the wrong side of 40.
He has three kids, complete with a wife half his age. The children, not hers.
His oldest a broody teenager that he suspects to be a homosexual. He never asks. He fears the answer, he'll never ask. The boy hates him, drowning out the father's words with a fresh riff from an electric guitar. The boy has a secret, he's not gay. He's an addict. Addicted to whatever for a time, can fix his fraying life. The father doesnt notice, his primary concern the sexuality of the son.
The other two both daughters and close in age. 14 and 15 respectively, too young he thinks to know of the world, too young to worry about. Innocence fading, he ignores the passing of time and fails to notice they idolize whores. Too ashamed by the image he sees in theirs face's of his ex-wife, a constant reminder of his guilt.
The wife hates him most. A blond beauty who dreams in vivid ambition. He doesn't see, cannot see past a perfect smile and young face. She bides her time, one meal at a time waiting for the inevitable. His heart is weak and she ensures he eats heartily. Death comes to him on a platter, one smile, one meal at a time. She hopes when he's gone, she'll have enough of her looks remaining to start over.
The house, a two-story Victorian rich in history. The prize jewel of another life, another family. Sold as they descended into ruin. The house is another trophy, a toy, a token of his wealth. All a lie, the family lives above their means, and only he knows it. The sad truth being he has no home, and he's the only one who doesn't know it.
This is the American dream, excuse me if I choose another. Move along, nothing to see here.
White Male.
Republican.
Old and graying with age, pushing the wrong side of 40.
He has three kids, complete with a wife half his age. The children, not hers.
His oldest a broody teenager that he suspects to be a homosexual. He never asks. He fears the answer, he'll never ask. The boy hates him, drowning out the father's words with a fresh riff from an electric guitar. The boy has a secret, he's not gay. He's an addict. Addicted to whatever for a time, can fix his fraying life. The father doesnt notice, his primary concern the sexuality of the son.
The other two both daughters and close in age. 14 and 15 respectively, too young he thinks to know of the world, too young to worry about. Innocence fading, he ignores the passing of time and fails to notice they idolize whores. Too ashamed by the image he sees in theirs face's of his ex-wife, a constant reminder of his guilt.
The wife hates him most. A blond beauty who dreams in vivid ambition. He doesn't see, cannot see past a perfect smile and young face. She bides her time, one meal at a time waiting for the inevitable. His heart is weak and she ensures he eats heartily. Death comes to him on a platter, one smile, one meal at a time. She hopes when he's gone, she'll have enough of her looks remaining to start over.
The house, a two-story Victorian rich in history. The prize jewel of another life, another family. Sold as they descended into ruin. The house is another trophy, a toy, a token of his wealth. All a lie, the family lives above their means, and only he knows it. The sad truth being he has no home, and he's the only one who doesn't know it.
This is the American dream, excuse me if I choose another. Move along, nothing to see here.
Morning Anger - 3/16/11
* Republicans Won't Commit to Even the Idea of Global Warming
Unable to even channel their inner Bart Simpson, who once said "I can't promise I'll try, but I'll try to try", all thirty-one members of the House Energy And Commerce Committee have stuck their collective heads in the sand over the topic of climate change. We're not talking about making changes to "The American Way"©. We're not talking about even committing to the idea of pro-environment legislation. We're not even talking about formulating a long-term strategy that delays our responsibility and dumps the problems into our children's laps (an old favorite trick in Washington). What's we're talking about is simple acknowledgment.
It's very simple: it's a matter of politics. You know the old song and dance; cushy jobs, pandering to whatever faction will get you in office, great benefits, boot-lickers a-plenty. These thirty-one spineless jellyfish, in an effort to appeal to the utter fringes of the radicalized base that shuttled them into office, won't even give a simple YES or NO on the topic of climate change. If you can't make the bold statement that "pollution is bad, m'kay", you're clearly not a thinking, educated individual and don't deserve to hold public office.
Silver lining? Maybe the filth and muck these people are enabling will get them before it gets us.
* House Republicans See Funding NPR as Bigger Threat Than al-Qaeda, Outsourcing, and Unions... Combined!
In a heroic effort to quell the most dangerous crisis facing Americans today, House Republicans are calling an emergency meeting of the Rules Committee to draft legislation that would permanently block funding to National Public Radio (NPR).
Whew. It's a good thing they're finally getting around to staunching the flow of hate, racism, and bile spewing forth over the airwaves that's contributing to the downfall of Western society.
Wait... Rush Limbaugh isn't hateful, racist, drug fiend who you're talking about and isn't on NPR anyway, you say? This all just reactionary fallout to the "sting" of the NPR brass by discredited douchebag James O'Keefe, you say? There's no actual substance to the video and it's merely edited to make the now-former president of the NPR Foundation appear badly, you say?
Huh.
It couldn't be that all this is merely a smokescreen tactic to push for what they've already said they wanted to do, but now have an "reason" to put into action. Republicans stay focused on the issues and wouldn't use loose, un-related topic connections to push their political agenda.
Right, Jim?
Bonus Fun Fact: Armed Forces Radio is publicly-funded and hasn't once been the topic of cost-cutting conversation, despite some of its questionable offerings. But I'm sure Rush, Mike Huckabee, and Fox News keep it professional and just-the-facts, no bigoted opinions... right?
* Rick Santorum Criticizes JFK For Not Being Catholic Enough
Ricky, you got some 'splain' to do!
Rick Santorum has called out a man that's been dead for nearly fifty years for a speech he gave in 1960. Let that sink in for a second. John F. Kennedy, a genuine war hero, bold leader that helped put a man on the moon, and arguably America's most beloved President of the 20th century, wasn't religious enough in extreme retrospect for Santorum, who was 5 on November 22, 1963.
And here's the kicker from Rooster: "Jefferson is spinning in his grave,"
That's true, but not for the reason he thinks.
You see, Mr. Jefferson, he of drafting the Declaration of Independence fame, he was a kooky dude. He was one of the most progressive (dirty word!) men of his age when it came to religion. Want to sneak a peak at this filthy liberal's view on man's relationship with its creator? The really sexy parts are bolded:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
So, Rick. They didn't have U.S. history classes when you were in school?
Unable to even channel their inner Bart Simpson, who once said "I can't promise I'll try, but I'll try to try", all thirty-one members of the House Energy And Commerce Committee have stuck their collective heads in the sand over the topic of climate change. We're not talking about making changes to "The American Way"©. We're not talking about even committing to the idea of pro-environment legislation. We're not even talking about formulating a long-term strategy that delays our responsibility and dumps the problems into our children's laps (an old favorite trick in Washington). What's we're talking about is simple acknowledgment.
It's very simple: it's a matter of politics. You know the old song and dance; cushy jobs, pandering to whatever faction will get you in office, great benefits, boot-lickers a-plenty. These thirty-one spineless jellyfish, in an effort to appeal to the utter fringes of the radicalized base that shuttled them into office, won't even give a simple YES or NO on the topic of climate change. If you can't make the bold statement that "pollution is bad, m'kay", you're clearly not a thinking, educated individual and don't deserve to hold public office.
Silver lining? Maybe the filth and muck these people are enabling will get them before it gets us.
* House Republicans See Funding NPR as Bigger Threat Than al-Qaeda, Outsourcing, and Unions... Combined!
In a heroic effort to quell the most dangerous crisis facing Americans today, House Republicans are calling an emergency meeting of the Rules Committee to draft legislation that would permanently block funding to National Public Radio (NPR).
Whew. It's a good thing they're finally getting around to staunching the flow of hate, racism, and bile spewing forth over the airwaves that's contributing to the downfall of Western society.
Wait... Rush Limbaugh isn't hateful, racist, drug fiend who you're talking about and isn't on NPR anyway, you say? This all just reactionary fallout to the "sting" of the NPR brass by discredited douchebag James O'Keefe, you say? There's no actual substance to the video and it's merely edited to make the now-former president of the NPR Foundation appear badly, you say?
Huh.
It couldn't be that all this is merely a smokescreen tactic to push for what they've already said they wanted to do, but now have an "reason" to put into action. Republicans stay focused on the issues and wouldn't use loose, un-related topic connections to push their political agenda.
Right, Jim?
Bonus Fun Fact: Armed Forces Radio is publicly-funded and hasn't once been the topic of cost-cutting conversation, despite some of its questionable offerings. But I'm sure Rush, Mike Huckabee, and Fox News keep it professional and just-the-facts, no bigoted opinions... right?
* Rick Santorum Criticizes JFK For Not Being Catholic Enough
Ricky, you got some 'splain' to do!
Rick Santorum has called out a man that's been dead for nearly fifty years for a speech he gave in 1960. Let that sink in for a second. John F. Kennedy, a genuine war hero, bold leader that helped put a man on the moon, and arguably America's most beloved President of the 20th century, wasn't religious enough in extreme retrospect for Santorum, who was 5 on November 22, 1963.
And here's the kicker from Rooster: "Jefferson is spinning in his grave,"
That's true, but not for the reason he thinks.
You see, Mr. Jefferson, he of drafting the Declaration of Independence fame, he was a kooky dude. He was one of the most progressive (dirty word!) men of his age when it came to religion. Want to sneak a peak at this filthy liberal's view on man's relationship with its creator? The really sexy parts are bolded:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
So, Rick. They didn't have U.S. history classes when you were in school?
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
The Problem with our Current Media.
Fox news is conservative, MSNBC is liberal, and CNN, well CNN is retarded.
These are the big three news media sources. And there rise and control on the market is disturbing. Corporate influence on the media means that not all the information gets out, advertisers have pull as business is business.
The news media has declined in the past twenty years. With the passage of certain laws and the veto of others we get slanted viewpoints from corporate giants that only report what is in their interests, and not yours.
Let me educate you on a little thing called the Fairness Doctrine.
This doctrine was a FCC policy that was introduced in 1949. It demanded that those who hold broadcast licenses were to present news in a manner that was honest, equitable and balanced.
Sounds like a good deal right? I mean if you only have so many channels to which information is broadcasted to you, you should prefer that the news medium be honest.
Fast forward to the 1980s when Reagan was president, the doctrine started to come under heat, some say it was a violation of free speech, even though in 1969 the Supreme Court upheld the doctrine by an 8-0 vote. However the doctrine was not law and democrats in the 80s tried to make it be one. It reached the desk of President Reagan and was promptly vetoed. By 1987 the conservative FCC voted out the doctrine.
Now let’s focus on something called the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
The big issue with this act is that it allows any one medium to own up to 35 percent of a broadcast in an area. Hello deregulation. It helps create media giants that can control several sources of information that you hear. This isn’t to say limit who gets Fox or who gets CBS but more or less who gets to hear the information from an uninfluenced source.
Take for example Clear Channel Communications. They are the largest owner of AM, FM and Shortwave radio stations. Most of their news stations are broadcast in the south. You don’t think that Clear Channel would report on anything that might be bad for business. I mean what business owner would. Hell they even go to the lengths to hire paid actors to call into their radio stations through a subsidiary company known as Premiere Radio Networks.
See, you’re not getting unbiased news.
So it seems that the only real source of unbiased news is coming from the print side. But anyone who pays attention to the world knows that newspapers are failing thanks to the creation of the internet and sites like Craigslist that steal from newspaper sources of income.
So that leaves one place left, the internet. And if you don’t think the elite are trying to get control of that, think again. Look what happened in Egypt.
As long as corporate media is allowed to go unchecked and unregulated we cannot guarantee that we are getting fair and balanced information, whether these companies want to claim it or not. The internet is the last place of free information where it can be released and not be affected by advertisers. See Anonymous or Wikileaks. Truth seekers are often lambasted and the money makers don’t like to be shone in a bad light. The web is our last ground, lets not let them take control of that.
When Cutting and Running Might Do Some Good
In addition to not reducing the supply of drugs and not increasing the street price of drugs, supply-side drug control policies appear to have the effect of increasing requests for political asylum. Mexican drug trafficking organizations have responded to attacks on their economic interests by Mexican security forces by killing over 30,000 people in 4 years. Such a situation is not sustainable.
Currently, the United States spends hundreds of millions of dollars per year training Mexican security forces to reduce the supply of narcotics coming into the US. These are admirable goals, but will probably never work. The money we've spent on training Mexican security forces doesn't appear to be making any impact at all, short of the very high profile killing of Arturo Beltran Leyva. While this may be something to cheer about because he was a bad guy, it has the effect of creating a vacuum that other drug producers will try to fill, likely leading to more outbursts of violence. This is exactly what happened in Colombia in the 1990s. After the death of Pablo Escobar and the arrests of the leaders of the Cali Cartel, the number of drug trafficking organizations exploded, and more and more drugs were moved through Mexico as a result. Breaking up cartels will probably decrease the street price of drugs over the long term, because more producers will enter the market to pick up the slack created by cartels who have left the market.
It's clear that 80 years of attempts at supply-reduction haven't really worked. People can point to individual successes like Turkey, but the end of illicit drug production in Turkey didn't decrease global production at all. It just shifted to other places in the world. Our drug policies exacerbate problems rather than solving them. By focusing on the fact that drugs are imported into the United States and pretty much ignoring what creates incentives for importing drugs (demand) we're resigning ourselves to wasting money. Instead of sending around $400 million a year to Mexico, we should probably move toward European-style drug control policies; which emphasize access to drug treatment and other methods to reduce demand.
Currently, the United States spends hundreds of millions of dollars per year training Mexican security forces to reduce the supply of narcotics coming into the US. These are admirable goals, but will probably never work. The money we've spent on training Mexican security forces doesn't appear to be making any impact at all, short of the very high profile killing of Arturo Beltran Leyva. While this may be something to cheer about because he was a bad guy, it has the effect of creating a vacuum that other drug producers will try to fill, likely leading to more outbursts of violence. This is exactly what happened in Colombia in the 1990s. After the death of Pablo Escobar and the arrests of the leaders of the Cali Cartel, the number of drug trafficking organizations exploded, and more and more drugs were moved through Mexico as a result. Breaking up cartels will probably decrease the street price of drugs over the long term, because more producers will enter the market to pick up the slack created by cartels who have left the market.
It's clear that 80 years of attempts at supply-reduction haven't really worked. People can point to individual successes like Turkey, but the end of illicit drug production in Turkey didn't decrease global production at all. It just shifted to other places in the world. Our drug policies exacerbate problems rather than solving them. By focusing on the fact that drugs are imported into the United States and pretty much ignoring what creates incentives for importing drugs (demand) we're resigning ourselves to wasting money. Instead of sending around $400 million a year to Mexico, we should probably move toward European-style drug control policies; which emphasize access to drug treatment and other methods to reduce demand.
Refuting Christians with Christ
Google
"Have Faith" AND "Jesus"
The results you see highlighted changes the "AND" to a "IN".
Showing one of the many underlaying problems with modern Christianity.
Lets go to the source though, lets ask Jesus.
Why thank you Matthew 21:21
Jesus Replied "Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but you can also say to the mountain, "Go, throw yourself into the the sea" and it will be done.
Does Jesus say what to believe in here? No, he makes a compelling argument to believe period. Not an argument that his is an absolute truth.
"Have Faith" AND "Jesus"
The results you see highlighted changes the "AND" to a "IN".
Showing one of the many underlaying problems with modern Christianity.
Lets go to the source though, lets ask Jesus.
Why thank you Matthew 21:21
Jesus Replied "Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but you can also say to the mountain, "Go, throw yourself into the the sea" and it will be done.
Does Jesus say what to believe in here? No, he makes a compelling argument to believe period. Not an argument that his is an absolute truth.
Monday, March 14, 2011
This is why I Hate You
A nifty little literary trick is to present a list to a reader. They read it, come to a conclusion about its origins, and then the author reveals the truth. It’s oh so clever.
That said, here’s a list:
Do not leave town at any time without permission.
Do not keep company with men.
Be home between the hours of 8 P.M. and 6 A.M.
Do not loiter downtown.
Do not smoke.
Do not be seen with any man except your father or brother.
Do not dress in bright colors.
Do not dye your hair.
Do not wear any dress more than two inches above the ankle.
Right about now, you should be shaking your head and thinking, “fucking Muslims, always repressing their women.” Well, here’s the “OMG!” twist; I edited the sentences a little. Here’s the full list, un-touched up:
Do not get married.
Do not leave town at any time without permission of the school board.
Do not keep company with men.
Be home between the hours of 8 P.M. and 6 A.M.
Do not loiter downtown in ice cream stores.
Do not smoke.
Do not get into a carriage with any man except your father or brother.
Do not dress in bright colors.
Do not dye your hair.
Do not wear any dress more than two inches above the ankle.
I pulled this from a history book; it was meant to keep female schoolteachers in line in Massachusetts in the late 1800s and early 1900s.
Fortunately for women, a strong, independent political party fought for and won them many rights, including, in 1920, the right to vote. This same political party made many changes back then. They may have never achieved the office of president, but they were able to do little things, like end child labor—that six-year-olds may attend school and not work in sweatshops—and create Workman’s Compensation—that people injured through unsafe conditions and no fault of their own be taken care of, not fired.
Every election cycle there is a constant grumbling that we need a 3rd political party in America. I agree. In 2008, I was completely unimpressed with both major candidates; I strongly considered not voting at all, and then looked into writing in a candidate of my choice. Unfortunately, the McCain/Palin campaign was so overwhelmingly negative, visionless, contradictory and off-putting, I begrudgingly checked the box marked “Democrat.” Better to have someone who seemed to have a clue what he was doing, I supposed.
Now that Obama is in office, there are many who cry “Socialist!”
Yeah, well guess what? Here’s another bait and switch for you: it was the Socialist Party that fought for and won the rights mentioned two paragraphs back.
So here’s the deal, if you think Obama is a socialist, with goals and ideals you don’t believe in, good for you.
If you’re a woman, stop voting, right now. You don’t deserve the right.
If you’re a parent, yank your kids out of school and put them to work immediately. If they’re not working, they’re not contributing to the betterment of America, and you love America, right?
If you’re ever injured at work, man up and deal with it, or quit, that you not be a burden on the poor, poor corporation who was so kind as to hire you.
Tell the government to get off the backs of big business, that we may continue to kill our pets with Chinese Dog Food, and poison our kids with lead-tainted toys, because restricting free trade is bad! And for fun, lets go back to the conditions of Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle.” That goddamned socialist author changed things for the worse; I say more animal feces and chopped off fingers in our meat!
Otherwise, do me a favor and shut the fuck up. Either you’re ignorant, which I have no problem with; ignorance is cured through education, but you should probably stay silent while learning. Or, worse, you’re stupid, which means you think you know what you’re talking about and toss out quotes by Thomas Jefferson, because you think they apply to the health care debate (they don’t), when in reality you’re just a dumb fucking meat-puppet that watches too much Fox News and thinks Sarah Palin is smart.
And that’s just fucking scary.
(Oh, and before you start pulling out lunatic-fringe Socialist propaganda and posting it here, fuck off. I don’t subscribe to every single thought under any umbrella, I’m just saying that if you ever use the phrase “Commie Care” to describe Obama’s Health Care plan, you’re not worth listening to, because you’re not debating on a rational level; this post is just me reducing myself to your level, simply to point out that you’ll still be shorter than anyone else in this debate, because you’re standing on bumper-sticker ideology, not books)
That said, here’s a list:
Do not leave town at any time without permission.
Do not keep company with men.
Be home between the hours of 8 P.M. and 6 A.M.
Do not loiter downtown.
Do not smoke.
Do not be seen with any man except your father or brother.
Do not dress in bright colors.
Do not dye your hair.
Do not wear any dress more than two inches above the ankle.
Right about now, you should be shaking your head and thinking, “fucking Muslims, always repressing their women.” Well, here’s the “OMG!” twist; I edited the sentences a little. Here’s the full list, un-touched up:
Do not get married.
Do not leave town at any time without permission of the school board.
Do not keep company with men.
Be home between the hours of 8 P.M. and 6 A.M.
Do not loiter downtown in ice cream stores.
Do not smoke.
Do not get into a carriage with any man except your father or brother.
Do not dress in bright colors.
Do not dye your hair.
Do not wear any dress more than two inches above the ankle.
I pulled this from a history book; it was meant to keep female schoolteachers in line in Massachusetts in the late 1800s and early 1900s.
Fortunately for women, a strong, independent political party fought for and won them many rights, including, in 1920, the right to vote. This same political party made many changes back then. They may have never achieved the office of president, but they were able to do little things, like end child labor—that six-year-olds may attend school and not work in sweatshops—and create Workman’s Compensation—that people injured through unsafe conditions and no fault of their own be taken care of, not fired.
Every election cycle there is a constant grumbling that we need a 3rd political party in America. I agree. In 2008, I was completely unimpressed with both major candidates; I strongly considered not voting at all, and then looked into writing in a candidate of my choice. Unfortunately, the McCain/Palin campaign was so overwhelmingly negative, visionless, contradictory and off-putting, I begrudgingly checked the box marked “Democrat.” Better to have someone who seemed to have a clue what he was doing, I supposed.
Now that Obama is in office, there are many who cry “Socialist!”
Yeah, well guess what? Here’s another bait and switch for you: it was the Socialist Party that fought for and won the rights mentioned two paragraphs back.
So here’s the deal, if you think Obama is a socialist, with goals and ideals you don’t believe in, good for you.
If you’re a woman, stop voting, right now. You don’t deserve the right.
If you’re a parent, yank your kids out of school and put them to work immediately. If they’re not working, they’re not contributing to the betterment of America, and you love America, right?
If you’re ever injured at work, man up and deal with it, or quit, that you not be a burden on the poor, poor corporation who was so kind as to hire you.
Tell the government to get off the backs of big business, that we may continue to kill our pets with Chinese Dog Food, and poison our kids with lead-tainted toys, because restricting free trade is bad! And for fun, lets go back to the conditions of Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle.” That goddamned socialist author changed things for the worse; I say more animal feces and chopped off fingers in our meat!
Otherwise, do me a favor and shut the fuck up. Either you’re ignorant, which I have no problem with; ignorance is cured through education, but you should probably stay silent while learning. Or, worse, you’re stupid, which means you think you know what you’re talking about and toss out quotes by Thomas Jefferson, because you think they apply to the health care debate (they don’t), when in reality you’re just a dumb fucking meat-puppet that watches too much Fox News and thinks Sarah Palin is smart.
And that’s just fucking scary.
(Oh, and before you start pulling out lunatic-fringe Socialist propaganda and posting it here, fuck off. I don’t subscribe to every single thought under any umbrella, I’m just saying that if you ever use the phrase “Commie Care” to describe Obama’s Health Care plan, you’re not worth listening to, because you’re not debating on a rational level; this post is just me reducing myself to your level, simply to point out that you’ll still be shorter than anyone else in this debate, because you’re standing on bumper-sticker ideology, not books)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)