I got into a stupid flame was the other day on Facebook with a friend (and her commenters)
She [A] posted the following to her wall:
If you think that putting up a mosque 600 ft. from ground zero and have
the opening of the mosque on the anniversary of 9/11/11, is immoral,
inhuman and a complete lack of respect for the memories of all that
perished on that day and their survivors & that politicians are
doing a grave injustice to the fallen heroes, their families and the
people of New York City, THEN PLEASE COPY AND PASTE THIS TO YOUR WALL
The first commenter followed with
[B] its digusting its even a thought in someones head…..
I saw this and saw yet another vile, right-wing sponsored attack on civil liberties. I am not religious, and abhor religion. I think it perpetuates an evil upon the world that does incalculable damage to current and future generations. However, I do support the rule of law, and the Cordoba House people have the right to build there.
This straight-forward list packs a wallop, in my opinion. It seems like that Tea-party advocates aren’t really mad about “government” and they aren’t really mad about government incompetence.
If I had to make my best guess, I’d say that they are mad that they are losing their country to “them.” Who is “them”? All of those people that the Tea Party people have come to see as different than they are. Outsiders. People who look differently and talk differently and dress differently. I don’t think of it as racism, though Tea Party people tend to be noticeably race-conscious. But they are also mad about those who belong to the wrong religions and those who come from the wrong countries. But how odd that they think that they are part of the same ingroup as the rich guys who are screwing them. Maybe it’s that skin color thing after all . . .
They are feeling like they they don’t control the country anymore–and they are throwing a huge tantrum. This is what I suspect.
A few weeks ago, I posted on a terrific video on a tried-and-true formula, “A Standard News Report,” used by television “news” stations to package non-stories in order to present them to the public as “news.”
Now, The Onion has presented its own version of packaging used by television “news” stations for presenting non-stories as “news” stories. Quite funny, yet serious and well-concocted. The Onion’s video looks like a news story about non-news stories, yet it presents a topic that is certainly newsworthy.
Speaking of The Onion, check out a new written Onion story on bigotry. Here’s an excerpt:
A coalition of the nation’s most fervent bigots convened in Washington Monday to address growing concerns that the production of hateful new racial slurs has failed to keep pace with the rise in mixed-race births.
Here’s the report from Huffpo (with video):
Early Wednesday morning, State Sen. Roy Ashburn (R-Calif.) was pulled over and arrested for drunk driving. Sources report that Ashburn — a fierce opponent of gay rights — was driving drunk after leaving a gay nightclub; when the officer stopped the state-issued vehicle, there was an unidentified man in the passenger seat of the car.
Based on the constant stream of incidents like this, we ought to just assume that men who disparage gays are gay. Freud calls this type of situation a reaction formation.
How and why should we repeal Don’t ask, Don’t tell? Everything you need to know is here, in this presentation by Lawrence J. Korb, Sean Duggan, and Laura Conley of the Center for American Progress. Here’s the pdf. Here are some of the facts worth considering:
More than 32,500 gay and lesbian service men and women have been discharged from military service since 1980.
This policy may have cost the U.S. government up to $1.3 billion since 1980.
“No reputable or peer-reviewed study has ever shown that allowing service by openly gay personnel will compromise military effectiveness.”17
Twenty-four countries allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military. None of these have reported “any determent to cohesion, readiness, recruiting, morale, retention or any other measure of effectiveness or quality,” according to the Palm Center, and “in the more
than three decades since an overseas force first allowed gay men and lesbians to serve openly, no study has ever documented any detriment to cohesion, readiness, recruiting, morale, retention or any other measure of effectiveness or quality in foreign armed services.”
Even the British, whose military structure and deployment patterns are most similar to ours—and who fiercely resisted allowing gays to serve in the military—were forced to do so by the European Court
What is step ONE for ending the deplorable status quo? “Issue an Executive Order banning further dismissals on the basis of DADT and send a legislative proposal on DADT repeal to Congress.”
We’re waiting, Mr. Obama.
Back in 2005, I was intrigued when the story broke that a fake reporter supposedly named “Jeff Gannon” somehow got access for White House press briefings. His real name turned out to be Jeff Guckert, and he had no credentials as a reporter. He didn’t even qualify for a press pass. Really strange stuff. Actually, the story got much much stranger:
I just ran across this 2005 Raw Story piece that goes into a lot more detail about Guckert/Gannon. Not only did he not belong at the White House at all, but it turns out that he was almost always there.
[D]ocuments obtained by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) through a Freedom of Information Act request, reveal Guckert had remarkable access to the White House . . . Guckert made more than 200 appearances at the White House during his two-year tenure with the fledging conservative websites GOPUSA and Talon News, attending 155 of 196 White House press briefings. He had little to no previous journalism experience, previously worked as a male escort, and was refused a congressional press pass.
If you read this Raw Story story, you’ll be amazed at the many anomalies regarding Gluckert’s White House visits. According to the linked Wikipedia and Raw Story articles:
The Secret Service Records appear to show that he checked in, but never checked out on many occasions, and visited the White House on several days during which no press conference or other press events were held.
You’ll see all of the data regarding Gluckert’s many visits at Raw Story. I don’t remember this story (of the extent of Gluckert’s White House access) ever getting covered by the mainstream media.
I’ll end with a question. It seems as though a huge percentage of gay bashers are conflicted closet gays. It was also clear that there were a LOT of gay-bashers in the Bush White House. To connect the dots, it would appear from Gluckert’s real profession and his extensive White House access that he was visiting the White House to provide sexual services to someone who also spent a lot of time at the White House. So who was it that Gluckert was spending so much time with at the White House. Which of the Bush Administration anti-gay bigots was spending so much time with Gluckert?
And one more question: Whenever a politician takes a strong anti-gay stand, shouldn’t we immediately and automatically remove them from political office and require them to go to therapy so that they can work out their conflictedness regarding their sexual attractions toward members of the same sex?
Anyone who has been following the 2008/2009 contest of California’s Proposition 8 (constitutional prohibition of marriage between people of the same sexual preference or same sexual identity) knows that it was submitted and promoted by Salt Lake City. The paper trail is clear. Arguably, Salt Lake City isn’t even in California. But that was not the issue, because the Utah money did persuade California voters.
Recently, the California Supreme Court upheld the amendment. But Friendly Atheist Hemant Mehta posted Am I a Bad Person If I Think The Prop 8 Ruling Was Correct?. His point is that this ruling will make it harder for anti-gay activists the next time around.
States are beginning to domino into accepting marriage between those of same gender much like they did for those of different races in the mid 20th century. Conservatives have a valuable role to play; they fear and resist change. They function as a drag anchor to force those who would move ahead to work out iron-clad methods before change is implemented. Our legal system therefore resists implementing anything new from the grass roots direction until it is acceptable to at least half of the voting population. Very frustrating, but a historical necessity. When the process is short-circuited, we get embarrassments such as the 18th and 23rd amendments to our Federal Constitution.