One of the more ludicrous statements made in the recent NOM Gathering Storm ad was the claim that legalizing gay marriage somehow takes away freedom from those who oppose it. Here is an eloquent response to that claim. This clear and well made video exposes some of the myths and mis-information about the threat that gay marriage poses to religious freedom. In fact, the host makes the argument that only WITH gay marriage can we have religious freedom!
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch recently fired one of its prominent columnists, Sylvester Brown. Why? Here's all you'll find even if you carefully scour the Post-Dispatch: A one-paragraph "Note" that Sylvester Brown acted unethically and that he deserved to be gone. But isn't it a big news story whenever the only daily newspaper serving a major metropolitan area fires one of its columnists for a purported isolated ethics infraction? Doesn't it deserve more coverage than a one-paragraph "Note to Readers"? Isn't this story news? What about when the columnist (who wrote three full columns per week) disputes the Post-Dispatch version of the facts? Isn't that news? You won't read about both sides of this dispute in the Post-Dispatch (though you can read about it here). What about the fact that Brown often criticized the Mayor of St. Louis coupled with the fact that the Mayor is on the paper's "Advisory Board?" Isn't that news? Should a newspaper ever have politicians on its "Advisory Board"? Isn't that issue big news? I decided to put out my own "edition" of the St. Louis Daily newspaper. I called it the St. Louis Post-Disgrace. Click on it to see the "paper" full screen." It contains the headlines that illustrate various aspects of the Sylvester Brown story that the Post-Dispatch failed to cover. I'll be waiting and watching to see whether the Post-Dispatch ever advises its readers any of these issues.
This post about a panicked cautionary note was sent to me today, obviously well after the tea-party fact, but I thought it was quite amusing. The ultimate effect being, of course, that their efforts at keeping any sort of grassroots movement going was shot squarely in the foot, as they effectively censored themselves out of communicating with each other. Some of the responses to the post are hilarious. Seems of late I've been reading too many rightwing kneejerk responses, barely literate and rarely logical, to eloquent liberal articles and posts, and I was beginning to feel an unease that "they" are going to take over again. I was reminded, reading these responses, that the left side of the general public is still out there, making merry and feeling confident. Whew. Now, is it just me, or does anyone else find that the further to the right one lands on the political spectrum, the less functional one's sense of humor seems to become? Not only can they not poke fun at themselves, which all of my friends (read: left-leaning people with brains) do pretty well, but they can't put words together to CREATE humor, either. Just fear, volume and paranoia. And ranting. Lots and lots of ranting.
I saw this at the gym last night, and almost fell off the treadmill! So many opportunities for double entendres - it's classic! Finally, something to thank our republican friends for! Although I refuse to imagine being teabagged by the likes of Armey, Beck or Cavuto! nuff said. Here's the video! (© MSNBC.com, posted by ThinkProgress)
Amazon.com has just initiated a new marketing policy. They are stripping away the sales ranking of any book with so-called Adult Content. Here's their little explanation: "In consideration of our entire customer base, we exclude "adult" material from appearing in some searches and best seller lists. Since these lists are generated using sales ranks, adult materials must also be excluded from that feature. Hence, if you have further questions, kindly write back to us. Best regards, Ashlyn D Member Services Amazon.com Advantage What this mean in effect, however, is that books primarily with gay and lesbian content are being singled out for exclusion from database searches. It is being applied in a bigoted and surprisingly hamfisted manner to conform to someone's standard of what constitutes Offensive Material. Adult Content generally means anything with more than coyly suggested sex in it. However, as a sample of the books not having their sales ranking stripped away, consider these: --Playboy: The Complete Centerfolds by Chronicle Books (pictures of over 600 naked women) --Rosemary Rogers' Sweet Savage Love" (explicit heterosexual romance); --Kathleen Woodiwiss' The Wolf and the Dove (explicit heterosexual romance); --Bertrice Smal's Skye o'Malley which are all explicit heterosexual romances --and Alan Moore's Lost Girls (which is a very explicit sexual graphic novel) These book sell very well, generally, so it's obvious that there's a dollar connection to this new policy. Midlist---the vast majority of books---will be targeted.
