“We need messengers to really capture that region - young, Hispanic, black, a cross section ... We want to convey that the modern-day GOP looks like the conservative party that stands on principles. But we want to apply them to urban-surburban hip-hop settings. We need to uptick our image with everyone, including one-armed midgets.”
- Michael S. Steele, Republican National Committee Chairman
************
I don't know what is funnier: the idea of the GOP adopting rap as a medium or...no, that's the best part.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
New York Post Shows True Colors
Before I comment on this...before I even post the article and the cartoon, I am going to save myself a lot of trouble by going ahead and replying to the typical responses to situations like this:
1.) Al Sharpton is just using this as a excuse to get back into the news.
A: Normally I would agree with a statement like this, but this is a "duh" moment. If a race has had a history of being referred to as apes and chimps, then of course making a cartoon like this is going to be offensive. This isn't a situation exclusive to blacks...every race has a disparaging stereotype. The chimp cartoon is offensive because it taps into generational wounds.
2.) Bush was referred to as a chimp and no one said anything...isn't that racist that it is a problem to criticize the black president but it is OK to criticize Bush?
A: It is OK to criticize a president. Clearly no one has a problem with that given that there are already dozens of cartoons that do criticize him that have not made the news. If Bush's race had a history that was comparable to the one mentioned in the response to Statement #1, it would be a problem, too.
3.) Congress wrote the bill, so the cartoon is talking about Congress, not Obama.
A: The New York Post--which is owned by the same company that created Fox News--referred to the stimulus bill as "Obama's Economic Stimulus Bill." Nice try. http://www.nypost.com/topics/topic.php?t=Barack+Obama
4.) I'm black and I don't find it offensive.
A: Congratulations for finding the cure to generational wounds! Why don't you bottle it up and sell it to everyone else? And on a side note, when did you become the spokesperson for the rest of us? No, I am not acting as a spokesperson myself by pointing this cartoon out. I am stating the obvious: this cartoon is going to strike a deep-set and painful nerve on a level that doesn't equate to other critical cartoons.
5.) The First Amendment protects their right to publish anything they want.
A: Of course it does...it also protects our right to speak out against it.
6.) Why are you trying to stir up trouble with this race stuff?
A: Spoken like a true racist on the defensive.
Well, hopefully that will save me the trouble of dealing with cliché responses. Here is the article:
Comment:
OK, New York Post...this is as transparent as plastic wrap. To try to throw this one off as being "made into something it isn't" is insulting. Why don't you just call it a day and reinstate your hoods-and-sheets dresscode? Not everyone is as ignorant to reality as your readers.
1.) Al Sharpton is just using this as a excuse to get back into the news.
A: Normally I would agree with a statement like this, but this is a "duh" moment. If a race has had a history of being referred to as apes and chimps, then of course making a cartoon like this is going to be offensive. This isn't a situation exclusive to blacks...every race has a disparaging stereotype. The chimp cartoon is offensive because it taps into generational wounds.
2.) Bush was referred to as a chimp and no one said anything...isn't that racist that it is a problem to criticize the black president but it is OK to criticize Bush?
A: It is OK to criticize a president. Clearly no one has a problem with that given that there are already dozens of cartoons that do criticize him that have not made the news. If Bush's race had a history that was comparable to the one mentioned in the response to Statement #1, it would be a problem, too.
3.) Congress wrote the bill, so the cartoon is talking about Congress, not Obama.
A: The New York Post--which is owned by the same company that created Fox News--referred to the stimulus bill as "Obama's Economic Stimulus Bill." Nice try. http://www.nypost.com/topics/topic.php?t=Barack+Obama
4.) I'm black and I don't find it offensive.
A: Congratulations for finding the cure to generational wounds! Why don't you bottle it up and sell it to everyone else? And on a side note, when did you become the spokesperson for the rest of us? No, I am not acting as a spokesperson myself by pointing this cartoon out. I am stating the obvious: this cartoon is going to strike a deep-set and painful nerve on a level that doesn't equate to other critical cartoons.
5.) The First Amendment protects their right to publish anything they want.
A: Of course it does...it also protects our right to speak out against it.
6.) Why are you trying to stir up trouble with this race stuff?
A: Spoken like a true racist on the defensive.
Well, hopefully that will save me the trouble of dealing with cliché responses. Here is the article:
Feb 18, 10:28 AM EST
NY cartoon appears to link Obama to dead chimp
By KAREN MATTHEWS
Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK (AP) -- The Rev. Al Sharpton says a New York Post cartoon that appears to link President Obama to a violent chimpanzee is "troubling at best."
The cartoon in Wednesday's Post by Sean Delonas shows a dead chimp and two police officers, one with a smoking gun.
The caption reads, "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."
The cartoon refers to Travis the chimp, who was shot to death by police in Stamford, Conn., on Monday after it mauled a friend of its owner.
It links the chimp to Obama, who signed his administration's economic stimulus plan on Tuesday.
Sharpton called the cartoon offensive and divisive.
The Post had no immediate comment.
© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.
Comment:
OK, New York Post...this is as transparent as plastic wrap. To try to throw this one off as being "made into something it isn't" is insulting. Why don't you just call it a day and reinstate your hoods-and-sheets dresscode? Not everyone is as ignorant to reality as your readers.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
"The Most Vilified Mother in America?"
We have all heard about Nadya Suleman, the mother of the octuplets that this country loves to hate. She is called selfish. She is called insane. She has been getting death threats and action groups are politicizing her story. People are going through her finances and publishing the name of the sperm donor and harassing him. And now Dateline NBC has dubbed her the "most vilified mother in America."
The basis of this hatred towards this woman is the fact that she is no longer married, she can't conceive children naturally--and please do not be silly enough to suggest adoption; married people have problems adopting children, do you really think the system would give her a break?--so she chose in-vitro fertilization. Everyone is so busy basking in the glow of their unearned sense of self-righteousness that they won't even acknowledge that the fact that these children survived is a miracle.
I'm not going to pass judgment on this woman for her decision (and I don't think that anyone else should, either), but there is a gross double standard that is being glossed over. The Duggar family is on its 18th or 19th kid and plans on having more and they get cooed on the Today Show with gifts and even get their own television show. They have a place on their site where people can donate money to them, and that is OK with everyone. The Duggar family gets nothing but praise. They keep having kids because it "makes [them] feel young" and soon as the child starts talking the kid is dumped on one of the older children to be raised in their "buddy system." Everyone is fine with the fact that Bob and Michelle Duggar have a permanent baby shower registry at Wal-Mart or wherever it is that they go. No one feels sorry for those kids or thinks the parents need to be locked up. But this woman "has issues" and everyone is pitying her kids for her "irresponsibility." This woman chooses to have a large family and she is branded as being mentally unstable because she chose not to get married? Her mother condemns her to anyone that will listen because she "wasn't raised to have kids without getting married?" If she were married would that make her more "stable" in their eyes?
She had 14 children. There is no evidence of abuse or neglect, but she is the mother that everyone loves to shake their fingers at. She is the most hated mother in America. She is getting death threats not for running a child prostitution ring, but for giving birth. There are children being neglected at this very moment. There are children being verbally abused and underfed at this very moment. There are mothers and fathers at this very moment in this country right now beating, sexually abusing or selling their children to be sexually abused by paying pedophiles...yet Nadya Suleman is the most vilified mother in America? Instead of spending all this rage on someone whose crime is wanting a large family, why not put that rage where it deserves to be: at the people that have children and are actually abusing them. I think some of those children would love to have some of the indignation thrown at the Suleman family to be applied to their situations.
The only thing that seems to be the big problem with people in regards to this woman is the fact that she is unmarried. No one is asking where the Duggars are getting the money to take care of their kids--they are realtors and the market is horrible. Why is it an issue with this woman and not with them? And why is no one disgusted by the Duggars accepting donations on their website? Is it because their family is "natural" and therefore that double-digit population doesn't count since "natural" parents are less to blame for conceptions?
This woman did not seek out the media, the media sought her out so they could ask belittling rhetorical questions about how irresponsible she is on camera. People only want to see her so they can tell her how much she disgusts them for being a single mother with a large family. They only want to shake their finger at her, evaluate her finances and tell her how selfish and "crazy" she is because she couldn't find a guy like Bob Duggar. Michelle and Bob Duggar are cooed and given gifts but the single mom is a selfish psycho. It's OK because they are married.
Having two ringmasters doesn't make it less of a circus.
The basis of this hatred towards this woman is the fact that she is no longer married, she can't conceive children naturally--and please do not be silly enough to suggest adoption; married people have problems adopting children, do you really think the system would give her a break?--so she chose in-vitro fertilization. Everyone is so busy basking in the glow of their unearned sense of self-righteousness that they won't even acknowledge that the fact that these children survived is a miracle.
I'm not going to pass judgment on this woman for her decision (and I don't think that anyone else should, either), but there is a gross double standard that is being glossed over. The Duggar family is on its 18th or 19th kid and plans on having more and they get cooed on the Today Show with gifts and even get their own television show. They have a place on their site where people can donate money to them, and that is OK with everyone. The Duggar family gets nothing but praise. They keep having kids because it "makes [them] feel young" and soon as the child starts talking the kid is dumped on one of the older children to be raised in their "buddy system." Everyone is fine with the fact that Bob and Michelle Duggar have a permanent baby shower registry at Wal-Mart or wherever it is that they go. No one feels sorry for those kids or thinks the parents need to be locked up. But this woman "has issues" and everyone is pitying her kids for her "irresponsibility." This woman chooses to have a large family and she is branded as being mentally unstable because she chose not to get married? Her mother condemns her to anyone that will listen because she "wasn't raised to have kids without getting married?" If she were married would that make her more "stable" in their eyes?
She had 14 children. There is no evidence of abuse or neglect, but she is the mother that everyone loves to shake their fingers at. She is the most hated mother in America. She is getting death threats not for running a child prostitution ring, but for giving birth. There are children being neglected at this very moment. There are children being verbally abused and underfed at this very moment. There are mothers and fathers at this very moment in this country right now beating, sexually abusing or selling their children to be sexually abused by paying pedophiles...yet Nadya Suleman is the most vilified mother in America? Instead of spending all this rage on someone whose crime is wanting a large family, why not put that rage where it deserves to be: at the people that have children and are actually abusing them. I think some of those children would love to have some of the indignation thrown at the Suleman family to be applied to their situations.
The only thing that seems to be the big problem with people in regards to this woman is the fact that she is unmarried. No one is asking where the Duggars are getting the money to take care of their kids--they are realtors and the market is horrible. Why is it an issue with this woman and not with them? And why is no one disgusted by the Duggars accepting donations on their website? Is it because their family is "natural" and therefore that double-digit population doesn't count since "natural" parents are less to blame for conceptions?
This woman did not seek out the media, the media sought her out so they could ask belittling rhetorical questions about how irresponsible she is on camera. People only want to see her so they can tell her how much she disgusts them for being a single mother with a large family. They only want to shake their finger at her, evaluate her finances and tell her how selfish and "crazy" she is because she couldn't find a guy like Bob Duggar. Michelle and Bob Duggar are cooed and given gifts but the single mom is a selfish psycho. It's OK because they are married.
Having two ringmasters doesn't make it less of a circus.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
A Casual Observation
Do you notice that when many Democratic-leaning voters do not get the outcome they want in elections, they pout for a while. The most extreme action is that they move to another area. They may even grumble every few months, but bottom line is that most of the responses are low-grade verbal ones. That tends to be the average reaction from the base.
But when many Republican-leaning voters do not get the outcome they want in elections, they buy guns, make death threats, go on every pro-whomever site and make vicious commentary, try to block the Democrats in their churches from getting Communion or kicking them out of church completely. That tends to be the average reaction from the base.
Disturbing, isn't it?
But when many Republican-leaning voters do not get the outcome they want in elections, they buy guns, make death threats, go on every pro-whomever site and make vicious commentary, try to block the Democrats in their churches from getting Communion or kicking them out of church completely. That tends to be the average reaction from the base.
Disturbing, isn't it?
Friday, January 30, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Blagojevich Kicked to the Curb
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Where Were You When Barack Obama Became President?
I was sitting on the loveseat in my living room. I had a late breakfast and was eating it in front of the television. I was holding the rosary that my friend gave me as a graduation gift and a small American flag. When he was sworn in, I stood up. Everything seemed so surreal. I was so excited when I saw President Obama and Mr. Bush walking out together; I kept thinking Mr. Bush is now the former president of the United States. I laughed as people that were there sang "Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey GOODBYE" as Mr. Bush did his final flyover Washington. I ran to my computer so I could see the White House webpage updated with our new president's image and agenda. Where were you?
Friday, January 16, 2009
Being Pro-Life v. Pro-Fetus
I am pro-life, however, I don’t associate with the mainstream pro-life movement. The reason being that a startling percentage of the people I encounter are not really pro-life, they are pro-fetus. Yes, Virginia, there is a difference. Someone that is pro-fetus angrily protests against abortion, yet with that same voice they condemn the same woman postpartum for being a single mother. A pro-fetus person is against government-sponsored programs that help said mother take care of that child because the mother "shouldn't have kids she can't afford." They preach about adoption, yet take no interest in petitioning for more oversight for foster homes so that these children aren't abused. And whenever some of these children have the chance to be adopted, a pro-fetus person is more concerned with whether or not the couple can buy a wedding cake topper at Wal-Mart than whether or not the couple can give that child a safe, happy home. A pro-fetus person will get on a jury and let a rapist go back out into the world to forcibly impregnate other women because “boys will be boys” and the woman “should have known better” or should “get over it,” with the caveat that if she was really raped, then she wouldn't have kept the child so she must have tried to trap him and it backfired. And if that isn't bad enough, they also support the idea that the rapist should have visitation rights. I have even encountered pro-fetus people that believe that if the father didn't want the child, then he shouldn't have to pay child support.
My faith teaches that life begins at the moment of conception, but I also subscribe to this crazy idea that the life doesn't end after the umbilical cord is cut. I now realize that there are pro-life people and pro-fetus people. A pro-fetus person's concern ends after the child is born.
A pro-life person doesn't mind tax dollars being used for programs that provide prenatal care. They support programs that help train these mothers for jobs. They completely support any programs that provide counseling for pregnancy-via-rape (and hopefully they are vehemently against cities where victims are charged for their rape kits). A pro-life person doesn’t feel like he/she is being robbed when one of these parents gets assistance to feed this child. They don't complain about tax dollars going to public schools or daycare—yes, I have actually heard people complain about tax dollars going to public schools. They also don't mind government grants and loans being available to that child once they grow up so that he/she can go to college. A pro-life person opposes legislation such as the Texas law (signed by so-called pro-life Gov. George W. Bush) that allows hospitals to take people off life support after 30 days without the consent of family, such was the case of 4-month-old Sun Hudson, whose mother lost the court battle to save her infant son's life while everyone else was paying attention to Terry Shiavo. A pro-life person doesn't demand that people stop taking communion because that person believes that reason trumps rage.
So that is what separates pro-life from pro-fetus: the idea that the concern doesn’t end after the mother has walked away from a clinic. That love and charity are more effective than anger and shock tactics. A pro-life person cares about that life (both of them) from the very beginning to the very end.
Thankfully, I now belong to an organization that shares those same beliefs.
My faith teaches that life begins at the moment of conception, but I also subscribe to this crazy idea that the life doesn't end after the umbilical cord is cut. I now realize that there are pro-life people and pro-fetus people. A pro-fetus person's concern ends after the child is born.
A pro-life person doesn't mind tax dollars being used for programs that provide prenatal care. They support programs that help train these mothers for jobs. They completely support any programs that provide counseling for pregnancy-via-rape (and hopefully they are vehemently against cities where victims are charged for their rape kits). A pro-life person doesn’t feel like he/she is being robbed when one of these parents gets assistance to feed this child. They don't complain about tax dollars going to public schools or daycare—yes, I have actually heard people complain about tax dollars going to public schools. They also don't mind government grants and loans being available to that child once they grow up so that he/she can go to college. A pro-life person opposes legislation such as the Texas law (signed by so-called pro-life Gov. George W. Bush) that allows hospitals to take people off life support after 30 days without the consent of family, such was the case of 4-month-old Sun Hudson, whose mother lost the court battle to save her infant son's life while everyone else was paying attention to Terry Shiavo. A pro-life person doesn't demand that people stop taking communion because that person believes that reason trumps rage.
So that is what separates pro-life from pro-fetus: the idea that the concern doesn’t end after the mother has walked away from a clinic. That love and charity are more effective than anger and shock tactics. A pro-life person cares about that life (both of them) from the very beginning to the very end.
Thankfully, I now belong to an organization that shares those same beliefs.
Friday, January 02, 2009
Yes, I'm THAT bored
You Are Upper Class |
 Class isn't always about money, and you've at least got the brains, manners, and interests of an upper class person. You don't have a trashy bone in your body, and you don't pretend to be someone you're not. You're comfortable with your station in life, and class issues don't really bother you. The finest things in life are within your reach, and you're comfortable enjoying them. You may end up: A business leader, corporate lawyer, or philanthropist Other people who share your class: Bill Gates, Oprah, former world leaders like Bill Clinton, and those reclusive billionaires no one ever talks about. |
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA
BARACK OBAMA IS THE 44TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27531033/
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Palin Punk'd...Badly...Very, Very Badly
Have you ever encountered something that was so bad that you cringed in embarrassment as if it happened to you? Well, this is one of those moments.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
GOP Strategist: Obama's Visit to Ill Grandma Is WORSE than Palin's $150,000 Wardrobe
I thought that someone in the GOP might try to attack Obama for visiting his ill grandmother, but then I said, nah...no one would do that. That would be completely tasteless, inhuman and harmful to the campaign.
That is what I get for giving people the benefit of the doubt.
GOP strategist Brad Blakeman expressed his outrage over Obama using a chartered jet to go and see his gravely ill grandmother, saying that it was far worse than campaign funds being used to spring for a Neiman Marcus et al shopping spree for VP candidate Sarah Palin. Aside from being the stretch of all time, is this guy serious? Condemning someone for visiting their grandmother--their seriously ill grandmother--and saying it is worse than spending more than what some people make a year on CLOTHES? Are you freaking kidding me?
Visiting sick relatives--especially sick parents and grandparents--is a hallmark of virtue the human world. We tell children stories of good little girls and boys on noble visits to ill grandparents. It is the one thing that a person can do in this increasingly cold world without question or condemnation. We don't care how you do it or for how long...there is never anything wrong with going to see an ill grandma. But Brad Blakeman thinks that Obama should have sat down, thought about how horrific it would be to use a chartered jet and then opted for commercial flight--which, by the by, I cannot see being possible once you are under Secret Service protection--before rushing to his grandmother's side, because that is what matters most...how you get there?
While this is proof that the McCain campaign is on life support, it also shows just how dirty and lowdown supporters are willing to go to attack the opponent. If McCain or anyone in his campaign finds out about this and does not condemn it, it will only confirm that the McCain that everyone once loved is gone forever.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Just A Question
Now that I've thought about it, I must ask: why is Sarah Palin getting praise for being on SNL when she didn't do anything during the show other than sit or stand while others did the work? She may have spoken two minutes total the entire show. Is this what we are being reduced to accepting? She can't even do a show that is intended to be humorous?
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)