Friday, August 29, 2008

There is so much out there; I don't know where to start.
So, I'll start with Fox News and their "wonderful anchor" Megyn Kelly.
Ms. Kelly decides to ask the ultimate question: What if?

Do you think that, you know, her saying that she loves America, that she loves this country, is going to do it for those who questioned her patriotism? Because she said something -- what she said was, and I wrote it down, was, "The world as it is just won't do." If you replace "world" with "country," you're back to the same debate, arguably, that you have been having about Michelle Obama's feelings about this country. Did she give her critics any fodder with that comment?

I must say I am amazed by Fox. Instead of actually reporting news, they like to make news by making random shit up. Yes, Kelly, by switching out words you do ultimately change the meaning. Duh! I like Stephen Colbert's take on the situation: "When I look through Obama's speeches and I change the word 'hope' to 'sodomy,' I really get steamed."

I ask myself, Am I really that shocked? Sort of. Especially from Megyn Kelly. She's a lawyer, alleged anyway (I wanna see that degree, missy!). I've been in law school for one week, and they drill in your head how important one word is. So the answer to Megyn's question is no. You would not have the same conversation unless it is with yourself. Because you are the only one that initiated it.
It's just like the Obama/Biden thing where Fox is changing the letters to show it's close to Osama bin-Laden. You've lost all credibility when you have to stoop to this level, like the people that believe if you fold the $20 bill a set way it shows 9/11.

Anyway... moving on!

Short Clips:
John Hagee thinks that Stay at Home Dads are going to hell. Yeah, John, who the fuck isn't?

Also, Cosmo=Women haters. I love it when a conversation about why people do bad things focus on other people rather than the person doing the bad deed. Stay Classy, Cosmo- And keep making women feel inadequate.

On to the BIG news:
I had the insane pleasure to wake up this morning to the news of John McCain's VP choice. Obviously, I am not a fan of John McCain. Surprisingly though, I did have some respect for him when he was running for Prez about 8 years ago. How times and perceptions have changed. As soon as I heard the VP choice, I was infuriated. Sarah Palin. Are you kidding me!?! This just screams "PLOY"! The reason for that is the campaign realizes that there are some [STILL!]upset Clinton supporters who might vote for McCain. If you are a Clinton how you can go over to the McCain side will always flabbergast me. It's like saying, "I don't have Quiche Lorraine here. So instead of going for the regular spinach quiche, I'm going to get the chicken fried steak." They're not compatible! The Palin nomination screams ploy- not bold or scary as the media has it. Why? Because the role of the VP is traditionally (Thanks, Dick!) suppose to be the "Lady in waiting". Yes they are there for advice, but they are there in case something happens to the President.

Well let's follow the crumbs. Obama picks Biden. Qualified, has been around forever. Supports women (BIG PLUS). Palin-hmmm. Previously a mayor of a town of 2000-8000 people (I've heard both numbers) and is now governor of one of the least dense states in the Union. So, if you take the equation that the VP is there for when something happens to the President (and if McCain wins, the odds are not in his favor) then we have Ms. Little league hockey as the president. How does the McCain camp have the balls to pull of such a stunt?! He's been gettin' (Okey slang) on Obama's case for being "inexperience" even though as a State Senator Obama had more people in his constituency then Palin did as a Mayor.

So, to me, the McCain campaign looked at the Hilary supporters and thought "if we just have a woman, any woman, and we got something." Hilary was not about putting a vagina in the White House; it was about putting a vagina in the White House who believed and fought for what her supports also believed and fought for. Palin is nothing but a younger female version of McCain with less experience than Barack. Now, McCain, I'd like to see you pull out the inexperience card again.
Shame on you McCain for thinking that some of us are stupid enough to fall for your pathetic and desperate trick.

BTW, Obama's speech? Kick Ass! To echo Michelle Obama:
For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Stay Classy Juanell Garrett!  

Sunday, August 10, 2008

You know what makes me mad? I know; there's a lot of things that make me upset. But one of the things that has the potential to send me to a fiery tirade is when people >cough, Christians, cough< feel the need to point out that we are a Christian nation founded by Christians. OK first, one needs to describe "founded" and "nation". Are you talking about when the pilgrims came to America to set up shop? Are you talking about Chris and his three boats in the Caribbean? Or are you speaking of the Founding Fathers signing the Declaration of Independence and/or The Constitution?

What made me so up set was an article written by Juanell Garrett. What she insinuates throughout her article is what many crazy people point to: that kicking god out of schools in the 60s caused the down fall of mankind. Garrett and others are referring to Abington Township School District v. Schempp; this is the infamous case that stated that organized bible study was unconstitutional. By the way, let me just add that all this ruling did was state that the schools can not sponsor a religion of any kind. If during study hall, a student wants to whip out his Bible and read, then so be it. Garrett finds this to be a line in the sand in American morality:

I blame something else: the expulsion of God from public schools following Supreme Court decisions in 1962 and 1963.
In the following decade, birthrates for girls 15-19 increased 50 percent, and gonorrhea rates in that same age group more than tripled. Violent crimes increased 170 percent while the population grew by only 12 percent.
One thing went down. SAT scores, which had peaked in 1963, started a steady regression in 1964.

Here's the problem with Garrett's argument. The bad thing about having only one life is that we have a tendency to view that this one that we are living in is the worse time ever. Especially with humans, we have this ability to romance the past, sometimes it seems like we are living in an absolute shithole.

Starting with her erroneous statement about the SAT scores, because I could find info on that faster, she makes the wonderful mistake that most people like her make: ignoring some facts that could be detrimental to the overall browbeating. Garrett is right-SATs did drop in 1963, BUT it made a "miraculous turnabout" in 1982. Like I said before, we always like to think we are living in the worse moment in history. I think it's because of our narcissism. It's quite annoying you know.

As for the STDs, well, those nasty little buggers have been around forever. And since Ms. Garrett thinks that the world was a charming cartoon before the "I hate god" 60s, take a look at what I found. Oh and before I go further, I am not bashing the military. But I think most people know about some of the trysts that men in the military engaged in. I've even heard some stories from the horse's mouth. All right... moving forward. Apparently our little friend, gonorrhea, has been around for a long time. Someone queue in George Washington, Ethan Allen, and those Mountain Boys:

…gonorrhea and syphilis, were significant disease threats before the availability of penicillin in the middle
1940s.Medical records from the Revolutionary War indicate that these STDs had a significant impact in terms of lost person-days among members of the Continental Army.

Oh it gets worse.

In World War I, the Army lost nearly 7million person-days and discharged more than 10,000 men because of STDs. Only the great influenza pandemic of 1918-1919 accounted for more loss of duty during that war. The STDs remained a significant threat in the early years of WorldWar II, prompting the War Department to embark on a massive educational and prophylactic campaign. Numerous posters were produced, warning soldiers and sailors of the dangers of excessively amorous behavior.

Gross, right? Seems that those men's bible circle in school didn't really help much, now did it?

Even with all this contradiction in her article, I'm sure you must be thinking how could there be more? But there is. Going back to my original paragraph- we are not a christian nation. Got that? NOT!! The founding of our nation, which I personally state as the signing of the Constitution, was based upon the ideas of the Enlightenment and the writings of John Locke. In fact, James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, who I love, stated such:

The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores
the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.

Doesn't sound like someone who likes religion to meddle in government. Granted, most people may not know Madison. So here are some that people should:

John Adams signing the Treaty of Tripoli:
As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] ... it is declared ... that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries....
The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation.

Abraham Lincoln to Judge JS Wakefield:

My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them

And the big man himself, George Washington writing to clergymen about why Jesus Christ was missing from the Constitution:

I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta of our country.

This blog has a lot of quotes, but I believe this final one by Justice William Brennan, who wrote a concurrent decision in the Abington Township School District v. Schempp, is a fantastic ending:

There are persons in every community—often deeply devout—to whom any version of the Judaeo-Christian Bible is offensive. There are others whose reverence for the Holy Scriptures demands private study or reflection and to whom public reading or recitation is sacrilegious.... To such persons it is not the fact of using the Bible in the public schools, nor the content of any particular version, that is offensive, but the manner in which it is used.

Whatever Jefferson or Madison would have thought of Bible reading or the recital of the Lord's Prayer in ... public schools ..., our use of the history ... must limit itself to broad purposes, not specific practices. ... [T]he Baltimore and Abbington schools offend the First Amendment because they sufficiently threaten in our day those substantive evils the fear of which called forth the Establishment Clause. ... [O]ur interpretation of the First Amendment must necessarily be responsive to the much more highly charged nature of religious questions in contemporary society. A too literal quest for the advice of the Founding Fathers upon the issues of these cases seems to me futile and misdirected.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

I despise Bill O'Reilly  

Sunday, August 3, 2008

Now, I do have a confession. I watch his show about every other day. Granted, not all the way through- I might have an aneurysm, and that's not good.

Any who. I've been on vacation (that's right, vacation. Not vaca. That's not a word), and I have missed a lot of stuff. So coming back, I log onto my computer, go to Newsvine after a long withdrawal, and notice something that doesn't surprise me, but rather infuriates me. Bill O'Reilly is mad... at liberals. GET. OUT. Particularly Al Gore. I'm not the biggest Al Gore fan. Not all of us liberal, atheist, feminist, environmentalist anti authoritarians follow his every word. I don't know what it is. I think it's his face. I just want to fix it. I don't know how. But, I digress.

It appears that Bill O'Reilly is mad at Al Gore, a liberal Democrat, for attending a liberal function. Shock! Next thing you know, I'm going to get catcalled for walking down the pantyliner aisle (What! I'm not suppose to be there!?!?!) Vice President Al Gore attended a meeting held by Netroots Nation which is somehow related to Daily Kos. Maybe I'm a bad liberal; but I have never heard of them. So I had to get acquainted with them, by doing some crazy Google searching, and their crazy "feud" with that crazy Irish man with his own show on Fox. What? Are you telling me there are more than one? Dammit!

So here's the feud: Daily Kos apparently didn't say such nice things about Tony Snow when he died. The gist that I took away from the blogs was that,yes, it is sad when someone dies of cancer especially when they leave behind a family, but just because someone dies does not mean they get a free a pass. The writers of the article realize that many in the Conservative "blogosphere" are sad that Snow died, even though many of them have never met the man or even in the same timezone, but conservative should not expect everyone to feel the same.

Yeah, so... I don't understand the big deal. This is probably because I'm the type of person who hates when people make a big deal out of everyday things. People die everyday. Every second. And the only people who are really troubled by it are friends and family. Maybe even a passerby. But don't expect me to have the same reaction to some one's death as you do. When I go word of Mr. Snow's death, I thought it was and still is a terrible time for his family, but you know what, I changed the channel to Nickelodeon. Call me callous, but I didn't even like him. Apathy is the only thing I could feel towards that news. Unlike with Jerry Falwell's death... which I had to subdue every ounce of me from throwing confetti in the air and eating cake.

But back to O'Reilly. Here's his response to Al Gore:
Al Gore now is done. He’s done. Ok. He is not a man of respect, he doesn’t have any judgment. The fact that he went to this thing is the same as if he stepped into the Klan gathering. It’s the same. No difference. None. K, he loses all credibility with me. All credibility.
Really?First, am I really suppose to believe that O'Reilly had any respect for Gore? If your inner circle includes Laura Ingram and Michelle Malkin, then no, you don't have any respect for Gore.
Unfortunately, that's not the bad part. He compares a liberal blog group thing-still don't know what they are- to two of the most hateful, reviled, fearmongering groups in recent memory and that's me being nice. I know Tony was a friend of his, but even if my friend died and some one I know was apathetic towards that person death, those remarks are not warranted. By the way, didn't we as a species decided that whenever you bring up Nazism or Hitler you automatically lose the argument? Check mate, Bill!!!

It almost repetitive to even state this but: Nazism and the KKK will never and can never be on the same level playing field as a liberal blog!!! You see that blog... Not an over arching political faction that killed millions. Not Racist bigots who lynch people and cause a gigantic wedge in the South. A Blog. Grated, a popular one; but still a blog. Just in case you not sure, read Elie Wiesel's Night or talk to any person of color in the South over 60. You, Bill, are a tool. And not the band... TOOL is awesome.

Also, if anyone is thinking the same way I am think, not only is O'Reilly a tool, but a hypocrite. I know for a fact that McCain has been on his show; and I also know that Bill isn't exactly mean when McCain is on or even mentioned. So why is that Al Gore can show up at a liberal function and be crucified by O'Reilly. But McCain can do things like, oh I don't know, seek the approval of the Religious Right and in particular John Hagee and everything is fine. I know that McCain has rejected his endorsement; but this is only after he had actively sought it and the public was making an uproar after people realized how crazy Hagee was/is.
Don't remember some of the things Hagee has said or wrote? Don't worry... I don't blame you.

I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans...I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are -- were recipients of the judgment of God for that...There was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades.... The Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment.

The military will have difficultly recruiting healthy and strong heterosexuals for combat purposes. Why? Fighting in combat with a man in your fox hole that has AIDS or is HIV positive is double jeopardy.

Do you know the diffence between a woman with PMS and a snarling Doberman pinscher? The answer is lipstick. Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with a terrorist.

Only a Spirit-filled woman can submit to her husband's lead. It is the natural desire of a woman to lead through feminine manipulation of the man...Fallen women will try to dominate the marriage. The man has the God-given role to be the loving leader of the home.
Oh Hagee! You and your misogyny and homophobia. When will it stop? Seriously... when will it?
So yeah, Hagee and those who ally themselves are able to go on TV all day without criticism, but you go to other side of the ideological grid and people bring out the pitchfork and torches. So in the case of O'Reilly, it's all relative. And as much as I hate relativism [against popular belief, most non-believers hate relativism], that's the only conclusion I have for O'Reilly and his decrepit reasoning. I don't care if you were once a teacher... a lot of teachers suck, you know!

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


Design by Blogger Buster | Distributed by Blogging Tips