I happened to watch the Today Show this morning. I know, who in their right mind gets up before twelve noon on a Saturday? Trust me, I don’t do that often. But my getting up way too early on a Saturday morning is not the subject I want to talk about. A story they had on about being single rubbed me the wrong way. Being single is what I want to talk about.
The authors of a new book tell us why we’re single, and if you’re single, it’s your fault. No, I don’t know who the authors were nor the name of the book. My impression is they are a couple and now want to teach everyone else how to suffer with a mate. The only point I got out of the five minute interview with them was a flashback years ago to a Newsweek cover story proclaiming unmarried women over forty had a better chance of falling victim to a terrorist attack than they did falling in love and marrying.
Of course some couples would tell you that marriage is an act of terrorism.
I really want to know why so many people look at being single as some sort of disease that needs a cure. If I can get a solid answer to that question, then I am dying to know why married people are so eager to hook their single friends up as if there’s a hurry to get them married.
From a man’s perspective, I can understand the desire to get married before middle age. Thinning, gray hair can’t rightfully be called attractive. And the beer gut really gets in the way of chasing women. It slows one down and most of the pretty, young things can out run the middle aged man. All he’s left with is women judging the size of one thing in his pants – his wallet.
Women, though, seem to be in a hurry to marry, too. The other day I was smoking a cigarette at work and two young women barely out of college came out to smoke and talk. I’m not normally an eavesdropper, but they were talking loud enough that I couldn’t help but catch their conversation.
The one boasted about meeting this really nice guy at the nightclub over the weekend. He wasn’t tall like she likes nor broad-shouldered. On top of that, he’s Jewish, which she felt might clash with her Christianity if the relationship moved on to raising a family. What won her heart, though, was his being a really nice guy with a gentle personality and the fact that he had a very good paying job didn’t hurt.
Now, I really don’t understand this. She’s young with a whole life ahead of her. She has a good job that could turn into a successful career if she wanted. She knows she wants the Marlboro man, but is willing to settle for a pudgy Jew with a sweet personality and money.
What the Hell is her hurry? She’s not anywhere near the age where all she has to look forward to is a terrorist attack.
Being single is not a disease. Focusing on marriage as being important, the goal to achieve, and willing to settle for less just to get married is a disease.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
ACLU Lynch Mob
Ok, he makes this way to easy. I met his challenge this week.
For those of you who may be new to this blog, I am referring to Mark Hyman, general manager of Sinclair Broadcasting, home station of Fox News. I run a challenge over at my MSN group, Boston Tea Party Protests. The challenge is simple; watch your local Fox News program for the general manager's editorial and respond to it. (Complete challenge with past responses, Fox News - The Point.)
His point this week criticized the ACLU for challenging a North Carolina ordinance that would ban sex offenders from the parks. Hyman artfully led his audience to believe that the ACLU was defending child molestors. The conservatives do have a knack for twisting the facts to spread hysteria.
So here goes, and feel free to click on the links above and give your opinion to Mark Hyman.
Mark Hyman wrote:
Court-ordered pre-trial negotiations broke down last month. Town Administrator Jason Young told The Point his side isn't backing down. So Woodfin, North Carolina and the ACLU are headed for a court date as early as this summer. Get pen and paper handy. You'll need it in a moment.
At issue is an ordinance banning registered sex offenders from the town's three public parks. The law was enacted after a 16-year old girl was raped in a park and after a pedophile living in property overlooking a park had molested several children. Child sexual predators often frequent locations popular with children. The ACLU sued this western North Carolina town of 6,000 on behalf of a registered sex offender, who was convicted of attempted sexual battery with a handgun, and is now demanding access to the parks. One of the busiest parks is adjacent to an elementary school, which uses the park for recess.
There are 21 known sex offenders living in Woodfin or in close proximity. Town officials know from first-hand experience that mingling pedophiles with young children is a tragedy waiting to happen.
Police Chief Brett Holloman, who is being sued along with the town, told The Point his job is to enforce the law.
It is disgusting that the ACLU, that is, the Anti-Children Litigation Union is anxious to support sex offenders, but shows no compassion for the safety of our children.
You can share your thoughts with the ACLU of North Carolina at (919) 834-3466 or at their website, www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/.
And that's The Point.
I'm Mark Hyman.
I responded:
I see the conservatives are whipping up a frenzy and forming a lynch mob again. No one wants to give pedophiles free access to our children, not even the ACLU. To imply otherwise is disingenuous at best, outright lying at worst.
The ACLU objected to the Woodfin law on several grounds including the right to free travel and the protection from retributive punishment once all terms of a sentence has been completed. The law, itself, is written too broadly and punishes people based only on their status and not on any threat they may pose to the public.
More disturbing is your connection of the case to child molestation. The case was filed on behalf of an adult convicted of a crime against another adult back in 1987. The plaintiff has completed all terms of his sentencing including prison and probation. Sex offender does not automatically equate to child molester. I would expect a member of the news corps to understand the difference and not purposely mislead the public simply to tell a rousing story to make a point.
Sex offenders have the lowest recidivism rate of any criminal, as can be verified through the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports. Many sex offenders return to their families and live out normal, law-abiding lives. Is it right that we tell them they can’t take their children to the park because of a crime they committed twenty years earlier? If we allow this law to take hold, where do we stop with the retributive punishments? Should murderers be confined to the empty deserts of the southwest? Should thieves be barred from entering a business establishment? Should speeders be permanently taken off of our roadways?
Sorry, I can’t join your lynch mob. The ACLU got this one right.
For those of you who may be new to this blog, I am referring to Mark Hyman, general manager of Sinclair Broadcasting, home station of Fox News. I run a challenge over at my MSN group, Boston Tea Party Protests. The challenge is simple; watch your local Fox News program for the general manager's editorial and respond to it. (Complete challenge with past responses, Fox News - The Point.)
His point this week criticized the ACLU for challenging a North Carolina ordinance that would ban sex offenders from the parks. Hyman artfully led his audience to believe that the ACLU was defending child molestors. The conservatives do have a knack for twisting the facts to spread hysteria.
So here goes, and feel free to click on the links above and give your opinion to Mark Hyman.
Mark Hyman wrote:
Court-ordered pre-trial negotiations broke down last month. Town Administrator Jason Young told The Point his side isn't backing down. So Woodfin, North Carolina and the ACLU are headed for a court date as early as this summer. Get pen and paper handy. You'll need it in a moment.
At issue is an ordinance banning registered sex offenders from the town's three public parks. The law was enacted after a 16-year old girl was raped in a park and after a pedophile living in property overlooking a park had molested several children. Child sexual predators often frequent locations popular with children. The ACLU sued this western North Carolina town of 6,000 on behalf of a registered sex offender, who was convicted of attempted sexual battery with a handgun, and is now demanding access to the parks. One of the busiest parks is adjacent to an elementary school, which uses the park for recess.
There are 21 known sex offenders living in Woodfin or in close proximity. Town officials know from first-hand experience that mingling pedophiles with young children is a tragedy waiting to happen.
Police Chief Brett Holloman, who is being sued along with the town, told The Point his job is to enforce the law.
It is disgusting that the ACLU, that is, the Anti-Children Litigation Union is anxious to support sex offenders, but shows no compassion for the safety of our children.
You can share your thoughts with the ACLU of North Carolina at (919) 834-3466 or at their website, www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/.
And that's The Point.
I'm Mark Hyman.
I responded:
I see the conservatives are whipping up a frenzy and forming a lynch mob again. No one wants to give pedophiles free access to our children, not even the ACLU. To imply otherwise is disingenuous at best, outright lying at worst.
The ACLU objected to the Woodfin law on several grounds including the right to free travel and the protection from retributive punishment once all terms of a sentence has been completed. The law, itself, is written too broadly and punishes people based only on their status and not on any threat they may pose to the public.
More disturbing is your connection of the case to child molestation. The case was filed on behalf of an adult convicted of a crime against another adult back in 1987. The plaintiff has completed all terms of his sentencing including prison and probation. Sex offender does not automatically equate to child molester. I would expect a member of the news corps to understand the difference and not purposely mislead the public simply to tell a rousing story to make a point.
Sex offenders have the lowest recidivism rate of any criminal, as can be verified through the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports. Many sex offenders return to their families and live out normal, law-abiding lives. Is it right that we tell them they can’t take their children to the park because of a crime they committed twenty years earlier? If we allow this law to take hold, where do we stop with the retributive punishments? Should murderers be confined to the empty deserts of the southwest? Should thieves be barred from entering a business establishment? Should speeders be permanently taken off of our roadways?
Sorry, I can’t join your lynch mob. The ACLU got this one right.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Top Ten Worst Songs Ever
I decided to post a little something fun for a change.
What are the ten worst songs ever recorded that made a hit? You know, the songs that come on the radio and you absolutely have to change stations before you barf. Even if the button lands you on a country station, or even a rap station, it's better than being tormented by that song.
Here's my highly subjective list because, let's face it, musicians are dime a dozen and there's way too much music out there for any one person to be able to listen to in a lifetime.
9. We built This City by Starship. Nothing but a sellout to 80's commercialism.
8. I Will Always Love You by Whitney Houston. Dolly Parton wins with this song hands down. Poor Whitney tried too hard.
7. YMCA by the Village People. Heck, make that anything by the Village People. Or was that their only song?
6. Do You Really Want To Hurt Me? by the Culture Club. I hesitated adding this one to the list because it was funny in Shrek, but deep down, yes, I really did want to hurt Boy George for having the balls to torment us with this song.
5. My Way or the Highway by Limp Bizkit. It might have been better if Fred Durst actually broke out in tears during the song. Whining through the whole song as if he's on the verge of tears, though, doesn't cut it.
4. 2004 by Rueben Studdard. If American Idol weren't a rigged competition, we all could have been spared this tragedy.
2. Bob Dylan. Pick a song, any song. He made legendary status because all the hippies were high --- and still are.
1. Ebony and Ivory by Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder. Aside from being boring and out of tune, the metaphor was too obvious and cliched. Goes to show you that even legends lay an egg once in awhile.
Ok, here's one song that is so far in the lead as the worst song ever, I give it a spot all its own separate from the list because I didn't want anyone to think that I even consider it in the same league as the above ten.
Roxanne by Sting. Dragging your fingers deeply across a chalk board as the nails scrape backwards, peeling off your fingers is a slightly better sound and experience than listening to this...nope, I can't do it. I can't say song.
What are the ten worst songs ever recorded that made a hit? You know, the songs that come on the radio and you absolutely have to change stations before you barf. Even if the button lands you on a country station, or even a rap station, it's better than being tormented by that song.
Here's my highly subjective list because, let's face it, musicians are dime a dozen and there's way too much music out there for any one person to be able to listen to in a lifetime.
10. Muskrat Love by Captain and Tenille. What perverted mind would create a love song about horny rodents?
9. We built This City by Starship. Nothing but a sellout to 80's commercialism.
8. I Will Always Love You by Whitney Houston. Dolly Parton wins with this song hands down. Poor Whitney tried too hard.
7. YMCA by the Village People. Heck, make that anything by the Village People. Or was that their only song?
6. Do You Really Want To Hurt Me? by the Culture Club. I hesitated adding this one to the list because it was funny in Shrek, but deep down, yes, I really did want to hurt Boy George for having the balls to torment us with this song.
5. My Way or the Highway by Limp Bizkit. It might have been better if Fred Durst actually broke out in tears during the song. Whining through the whole song as if he's on the verge of tears, though, doesn't cut it.
4. 2004 by Rueben Studdard. If American Idol weren't a rigged competition, we all could have been spared this tragedy.
2. Bob Dylan. Pick a song, any song. He made legendary status because all the hippies were high --- and still are.
1. Ebony and Ivory by Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder. Aside from being boring and out of tune, the metaphor was too obvious and cliched. Goes to show you that even legends lay an egg once in awhile.
Ok, here's one song that is so far in the lead as the worst song ever, I give it a spot all its own separate from the list because I didn't want anyone to think that I even consider it in the same league as the above ten.
Roxanne by Sting. Dragging your fingers deeply across a chalk board as the nails scrape backwards, peeling off your fingers is a slightly better sound and experience than listening to this...nope, I can't do it. I can't say song.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Open Letter to the President
Sure, I know. Today, the Senate is expected to reject a proposal for a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. But the issue is far from dead. The House is expected to take it up again later this summer. And then there is the Replay of 2004 principal at play here.
I figured it would be best to start letting our elected officials know how ridiculous they really sound. So I wrote the letter below to President Bush. I wonder if he'll have someone read it to him so he can understand what I have said...
At any rate, you, too, can write the President - and your senators and representative too! I even provide a way to write the President anonymously if you are worried about his tendency to snoop into our lives. Get the details here.
If you're really ambitious, check out other things you can do to promote same sex marriage...or just tee somebody off.
Now, back to my letter to President Bush:
Dear President Bush,
What do murderers, rapists, thieves, child molesters, alcoholics, and drug addicts have in common?
They can marry.
What do death row inmates and lifers with no chance of parole have in common?
They can marry, too.
Here’s a clincher. What can an illegal alien do that a native born, law abiding, US citizen, who is gay, cannot?
That’s right. The illegal alien can marry, too.
All those marriages are condoned and recognized by the federal government and all fifty states without question. A gay couple, however, is viewed as a threat to the institution of marriage and an undermining force to the American family.
This summer the House is expected to take up the issue of gay marriage and an amendment to the Constitution to define marriage as being only between a man and a woman. I urge you to make an about face on the issue and oppose the amendment effort.
First, marriage has been and always should be a state issue. Second, the proposed constitutional amendment serves only to enshrine discrimination and bigotry into our laws and society in general. If it were about protecting the American family and the great institution of marriage, the people I mentioned above wouldn’t be allowed to marry either.
Highest regards,
Mark Darien
I figured it would be best to start letting our elected officials know how ridiculous they really sound. So I wrote the letter below to President Bush. I wonder if he'll have someone read it to him so he can understand what I have said...
At any rate, you, too, can write the President - and your senators and representative too! I even provide a way to write the President anonymously if you are worried about his tendency to snoop into our lives. Get the details here.
If you're really ambitious, check out other things you can do to promote same sex marriage...or just tee somebody off.
Now, back to my letter to President Bush:
Dear President Bush,
What do murderers, rapists, thieves, child molesters, alcoholics, and drug addicts have in common?
They can marry.
What do death row inmates and lifers with no chance of parole have in common?
They can marry, too.
Here’s a clincher. What can an illegal alien do that a native born, law abiding, US citizen, who is gay, cannot?
That’s right. The illegal alien can marry, too.
All those marriages are condoned and recognized by the federal government and all fifty states without question. A gay couple, however, is viewed as a threat to the institution of marriage and an undermining force to the American family.
This summer the House is expected to take up the issue of gay marriage and an amendment to the Constitution to define marriage as being only between a man and a woman. I urge you to make an about face on the issue and oppose the amendment effort.
First, marriage has been and always should be a state issue. Second, the proposed constitutional amendment serves only to enshrine discrimination and bigotry into our laws and society in general. If it were about protecting the American family and the great institution of marriage, the people I mentioned above wouldn’t be allowed to marry either.
Highest regards,
Mark Darien
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Build Your Own Platform - The War on Terror
(For details on the build your own platform project, please visit my outline in the Boston Tea Party Protests MSN group. And feel free to participate either here or over there.)
As a card carrying Republican, I’d like to see the Republican party do an about face on its approach to the War on Terror. The present overt, “we’re going to kick your ass” approach costs too many American lives, distances many of our allies from us, and foments more distrust and hatred among nations that already didn’t like us much.
There is no War on Terror any more than there ever was or is a War on Drugs or a War on Poverty. Such campaigns are destined to fail because the scope is much too broad.
The first victim in this about face on the War on Terrorism would be the Department of Homeland Security. Their three primary missions are prevent terrorism within the US, reduce our vulnerability to terrorism, and “minimize the damage from potential attacks and natural disasters”.
I quoted the last part directly from the Homeland Security’s website because it struck me funny. “Potential attacks” don’t cause any damage. Real attacks do. The Department’s own mission statement clearly illustrates its ineffectiveness not to mention its redundancy. Instead of creating a new department to handle what existing departments are supposed to be doing, we should be tightening, redefining, and coordinating the efforts of existing agencies to accomplish the same objectives. Preventing attacks, reducing our vulnerability, and minimizing damage is already the responsibility of the FBI, CIA, federal and state law enforcement, the military, and FEMA. More bureaucracy solves nothing.
The Patriot Act needs to be scrapped, or at least parts of it. The sections that help redefine the roles of our existing agencies to better coordinate intelligence sharing and communication should stay. Everything else should go.
Tightening our borders shouldn’t be physical barriers designed to keep Mexicans out because they don’t speak English. It should be more coordination between our law enforcement agencies and the Mexican and Canadian law enforcement agencies to better identify potential terrorist threats entering or exiting all three countries. Illegal immigration is another issue and shouldn’t be confused with our efforts against terrorism.
Identifying the terrorists’ funding sources should continue and the sources interrupted. Countries openly harboring terrorists or turning a blind eye to the activities within their border should be dealt with diplomatically. Effort should be made for them to take an active role in fighting terrorists within their borders. Isolating uncooperative nations from the world community both diplomatically and economically should be our first course of action. Our most effective tool to make this approach work effectively would be winning the trust and support of our allies. If we make the issue as important to them as we feel it is to us and make them the key players in the diplomatic battle, the fight is half over.
No country has a need for WMD. However, it is near impossible to convince any nation to scrap their WMD or shelve efforts to develop them as long as the major world powers have their own stockpiles. A moratorium should be placed on the development of any new weapons or increases in current stockpiles. For nations that currently have stockpiles, a plan to reduce and eventually eliminate them should be in place and clearly promoted. Such a plan may reduce the incentive for other countries to develop their own weapons.
Military action against nations that harbor or aid terrorists or is perceived as a possible threat against the US or her allies should be a very last resort move only. Pre-emptive strikes against nations should never be an option. One thing we have that a terrorist nation doesn’t have is time and lots of it. With worldwide cooperation, sanctions can be at least somewhat effective and a rogue nation leashed to its localized influence. Only when its activities reach beyond its borders despite all diplomatic attempts and sanctions against it should military force be considered and only with a truly international coalition. The one exception – a direct attack on the US. Just as we would support one of our allies if it were attacked, we should expect support from our allies if we are attacked, but we don’t need their permission to protect ourselves.
Lastly, we must lead the way in preventing new terrorist-friendly countries from developing. An adopt-a-nation program needs to be developed. The major industrialized nations should be encouraged to adopt a poorer, developing nation and help them become a more stable, richer nation. The goals of the adopt-a-nation program would be to help nations fight poverty and raise the standard of living of the average citizen. This would be accomplished by bringing new agricultural techniques to the country, helping to build basic civil engineering projects like dams to provide irrigation and clean drinking water, building new schools, providing basic medical care and helping to build new hospitals and training new doctors and nurses, and aiding the country in developing the necessary economic infrastructures to ensure its own self-reliance.
Because of the potential for abuse and fraud by both the sponsoring nation and the leaders of the nation being helped, the world community should closely monitor the program, perhaps through the UN. Just like corporations that have all sorts of internal controls and audits to ensure their legit operation, the adopt-a-nation program could develop similar controls. For example, let’s say country A adopts country B. Both countries make quarterly reports to the UN detailing the money spent, projects built, and programs instituted. The reports can be reviewed by the other nations and other nations could step in and perform independent audits and make suggestions. If enough nations think there is something seriously going wrong with the program, they could vote to end the sponsorship by country A.
In effect, the adopt-a-nation program isn’t much different than what nations currently do on their own accord. The only difference is that there would now be a formalized program and countries that normally get neglected may actually get the help they need and, some day, may be in a position to join the world stage and take a bow.
As a card carrying Republican, I’d like to see the Republican party do an about face on its approach to the War on Terror. The present overt, “we’re going to kick your ass” approach costs too many American lives, distances many of our allies from us, and foments more distrust and hatred among nations that already didn’t like us much.
There is no War on Terror any more than there ever was or is a War on Drugs or a War on Poverty. Such campaigns are destined to fail because the scope is much too broad.
The first victim in this about face on the War on Terrorism would be the Department of Homeland Security. Their three primary missions are prevent terrorism within the US, reduce our vulnerability to terrorism, and “minimize the damage from potential attacks and natural disasters”.
I quoted the last part directly from the Homeland Security’s website because it struck me funny. “Potential attacks” don’t cause any damage. Real attacks do. The Department’s own mission statement clearly illustrates its ineffectiveness not to mention its redundancy. Instead of creating a new department to handle what existing departments are supposed to be doing, we should be tightening, redefining, and coordinating the efforts of existing agencies to accomplish the same objectives. Preventing attacks, reducing our vulnerability, and minimizing damage is already the responsibility of the FBI, CIA, federal and state law enforcement, the military, and FEMA. More bureaucracy solves nothing.
The Patriot Act needs to be scrapped, or at least parts of it. The sections that help redefine the roles of our existing agencies to better coordinate intelligence sharing and communication should stay. Everything else should go.
Tightening our borders shouldn’t be physical barriers designed to keep Mexicans out because they don’t speak English. It should be more coordination between our law enforcement agencies and the Mexican and Canadian law enforcement agencies to better identify potential terrorist threats entering or exiting all three countries. Illegal immigration is another issue and shouldn’t be confused with our efforts against terrorism.
Identifying the terrorists’ funding sources should continue and the sources interrupted. Countries openly harboring terrorists or turning a blind eye to the activities within their border should be dealt with diplomatically. Effort should be made for them to take an active role in fighting terrorists within their borders. Isolating uncooperative nations from the world community both diplomatically and economically should be our first course of action. Our most effective tool to make this approach work effectively would be winning the trust and support of our allies. If we make the issue as important to them as we feel it is to us and make them the key players in the diplomatic battle, the fight is half over.
No country has a need for WMD. However, it is near impossible to convince any nation to scrap their WMD or shelve efforts to develop them as long as the major world powers have their own stockpiles. A moratorium should be placed on the development of any new weapons or increases in current stockpiles. For nations that currently have stockpiles, a plan to reduce and eventually eliminate them should be in place and clearly promoted. Such a plan may reduce the incentive for other countries to develop their own weapons.
Military action against nations that harbor or aid terrorists or is perceived as a possible threat against the US or her allies should be a very last resort move only. Pre-emptive strikes against nations should never be an option. One thing we have that a terrorist nation doesn’t have is time and lots of it. With worldwide cooperation, sanctions can be at least somewhat effective and a rogue nation leashed to its localized influence. Only when its activities reach beyond its borders despite all diplomatic attempts and sanctions against it should military force be considered and only with a truly international coalition. The one exception – a direct attack on the US. Just as we would support one of our allies if it were attacked, we should expect support from our allies if we are attacked, but we don’t need their permission to protect ourselves.
Lastly, we must lead the way in preventing new terrorist-friendly countries from developing. An adopt-a-nation program needs to be developed. The major industrialized nations should be encouraged to adopt a poorer, developing nation and help them become a more stable, richer nation. The goals of the adopt-a-nation program would be to help nations fight poverty and raise the standard of living of the average citizen. This would be accomplished by bringing new agricultural techniques to the country, helping to build basic civil engineering projects like dams to provide irrigation and clean drinking water, building new schools, providing basic medical care and helping to build new hospitals and training new doctors and nurses, and aiding the country in developing the necessary economic infrastructures to ensure its own self-reliance.
Because of the potential for abuse and fraud by both the sponsoring nation and the leaders of the nation being helped, the world community should closely monitor the program, perhaps through the UN. Just like corporations that have all sorts of internal controls and audits to ensure their legit operation, the adopt-a-nation program could develop similar controls. For example, let’s say country A adopts country B. Both countries make quarterly reports to the UN detailing the money spent, projects built, and programs instituted. The reports can be reviewed by the other nations and other nations could step in and perform independent audits and make suggestions. If enough nations think there is something seriously going wrong with the program, they could vote to end the sponsorship by country A.
In effect, the adopt-a-nation program isn’t much different than what nations currently do on their own accord. The only difference is that there would now be a formalized program and countries that normally get neglected may actually get the help they need and, some day, may be in a position to join the world stage and take a bow.
Saturday, June 03, 2006
Build Your Own Political Platform
Over at my group, The Boston Tea Party Protests, I have encouraged the members to build their own political platform. I figured I'd share it here. Of course, you are always welcomed to join the discussion over there, too. The more we talk about it, maybe the more our politicians will listen.
Worth a try anyway.
Worth a try anyway.
Preamble:
The 2008 elections are still two years away. Right now, the three major parties are building their platforms that they will present at their conventions in two more years. The average American, however, will align themselves with one or the other party, but have little to nothing to do with the development of their party's platform and many more will only understand bits and pieces of it.
The BTP group's platform aim is three-fold:
- Help members become familiar with the three main parties' platforms (Republican, Democratic, and Libertarian).
- Help members understand what the planks of the platforms actually say, debate them, and help them solidify their own opinion of what the planks should be.
- Provide a tool so that members can easily compare their own platform they will formulate here to that of the three main parties' platform to help them make more sound decisions come the 2008 election.
Recognizing that this is a huge task, at minimum, each topic will be afforded at least a one month debate time before, as a group, we move to a new plank. By the end of two years (maybe even sooner), the BTP group platform should be done and each member will have his/her own platform to compare to the national platforms of the three major parties'.
Each member is encouraged to write their own platform as the debate and formulation of BTP group's platform progresses. Probably the best way to do this would be to keep track of it in a word document, adding to it as each topic is discussed here. When we're completed with the platform, it'd be up to each member whether they want to share their version or not.
The posted BTP group's platform will only be a subjective compilation of what appears to be the majority consensus on any topic and will be used only as an example for other members to use as they build their own platform. It will not be an official stance of the group in any way nor should it be construed as such. How and when I will post the BTP group's version will be decided at a later date.
We'll be using the parties' 2004 platforms as a guideline as we develop our own platform for 2008. The following links take you to the respective party's 2004 national platform: Republican, Democratic, Libertarian.
General outline, table of contents, if you will, fo BTP group's party platform:
Overall Vision for America
International
- War on Terror
Overall Goals
Afghanistan
Iraq
Anticipated Future Problems/Solutions - Middle East Relations
Overall Goals
Israel
Palestine
Iran
Saudi Arabia - Asian-Indo-Pacific Relations
Overall Goals
China
North Korea - European Relations
Overall Goals - Latin/South American Relations
Overall Goals
Domestic
- Immigration
Overall Goals - Native Americans
Overall Goals - Health Care
Overall Goals
Every American Insured
Malpractice Lawsuit Caps - Social Security
Overall Goals
Privitization - Families
Overall Goals
Same Sex Marriage
Home Ownership
Education - Crime
Overall Goals - Jobs
Overall Goals
Outsourcing
Creating Jobs - Economy
Overall goals - Environment
Overall Goals - Energy
Overall Goals
Energy Independence
Alternative Fuels - Military
Overall Goals
Future Roles
There is the general outline we'll take one at a time to discuss so each member can formulate his/her own plank to compare with the national parties' planks.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
The Different Levels of Bias
It is important, as individuals, we recognize that biases and prejudices are a normal facet of being human. Through thousands of years, our tendency to catagorize and stereotype like things has helped us to find beneficial opportunities and avoid danger or trouble. It has helped us to survive.
Carried to the extreme, this natural tendency to categorize and stereotype becomes destructive. It allows us to justify slavery, segregation, wars, riots, marginalization of various groups of people, and violence against individual people belonging to the group of "them."
There's a fine line between bias and prejudism. There's a fine line between prejudism and bigotry. And there's a fine line between bigotry and a racism/homophobia.
As individuals, no matter how open-minded we may believe we are, we need to be truthful with ourselves and accept that we all carry our biases and prejudices inside us. Once we accept that, then we have to recognize when our prejudices are coloring our thinking and what we are saying.
At this point one might be thinking, "This guy is full of it." Let's take a simple example to illustrate what I have just stated.
An avid gardener takes a road trip every weekend looking for plants to add to his garden. Since he knows the habitat where the plants normally grow, he knows what he is looking for. As he winds down back country roads, he passes many side roads. Some he takes, some he passes up. Initially, how he makes these decisions is purely random. A road is a road to him and all are equal. He exhibits no bias.
After a couple of weekends of searching for plants and finding some really cool ones, on his next trip he starts consciously making a decision of which roads to turn on and which ones to pass up. Specifically, he has learned from his past trips that winding roads, roads with cool sounding names like Snake Creek Road and roads that slope slightly downward through a forest of thick trees hold the most promise to finding really unique plants. If the road holds all three qualities, he knows he will almost definitely find something really cool. As he drives through the country, he specifically looks for these roads. He is now showing his bias by ignoring roads that don't have at least one of the three characteristics he's looking for. When he tells his gardening friends, "If you want to find really cool plants, you might have better luck finding them if you go down winding roads or roads with cool names or roads that slope downward into a forest," he is expressing his bias.
His bias moves towards prejudism when he exclusively searches for the roads with at least one of those characteristics and almost always turns down any other road. When he tells his gardening friends, "If you want to find really cool plants, you're best bet is to find roads that are winding or have really cool names or slope downward into a forest. If you find a road with all three characteristics, you'll surely find the plants you want," he is expressing his prejudism. The switch is subtle, but now he promotes roads having at least one of the three characteristics to the exclusion of any other road and even implies that any other road just isn't good enough.
His prejudism moves towards bigotry when he turns down a road that doesn't have any of those characteristics despite being told that the road might have what he is looking for. When he tells his friends, "Oh no. That road isn't a winding road, has a plain name, and doesn't slope downward into a forest so the plant I want can't be down there," he is expressing his bigotry.
His bigotry moves towards racism/homophobia when he seeks out roads with all three characteristics, settles on roads with at least two of the characteristics, begrudgingly accepts roads with one characteristic without holding high hopes for it, and refuses to go down any other road. When he tells friends, "If the road is winding, has a cool name, and slopes downwards through a forest, those are the best roads to find cool plants. A road with two of those characteristics ain't bad, and if it only has one, you'll most likely be wasting your time. Forget about going down any other road. You'll only find trash plants on them," he is expressing his racism/homophobia.
Notice how there is a kernel of truth to his assumptions about the roads where he thinks he will most likely find some cool plants. Winding roads are usually less travelled because they take longer to get through than straight roads. A lot of times, the cool sounding names imply something about the characteristic of the road. Snake Creek Road, for example, might have been named after the winding creek the road parallels. Cool plants can be found along creeks. Roads sloping down through a forest implies two things: first, the area might not be developed and the downward slopes implies a possible creek, stream, or fertile valley where cool plants love to grow.
Notice, though, that as he moves from bias to racism/homophobia, he moves away from the assumptions above, and begins judging good roads from bad roads based on those assumptions and the assumptions, themselves, move from assumptions to facts.
If one were to point out to him that he can't judge the likilihood of finding cool plants based on the appearance of the first couple of hundred yards of the road because any or all of those characteristics can change a mile or two down the road, his response would be a good clue as to how much faith you should put in his advice.
If he responds, "True, but there's only so many hours of daylight and you want to increase your chances of finding cool plants, try to pick the roads with any of those characteristics," you can probably believe him because he appears to have used reason and logic to come to his conclusion.
If he responds, "True, but a lot of times you'll come up empty-handed whereas if you stayed on the road you were on, a couple of miles down might have been the better road to choose," you can still probably believe him because he is still using reason and logic. Notice, however, the subtle switch in his judgment. I biased person will agree with you about judging the road prematurely, but just wants to increaase his odds, the prejudiced person slips in the nuance that roads that hold none of the three characteristics are a waste of time. It's subtle, but it's there.
If he responds, "True, but most of the times those other roads will get you nothing so why waste your time?", you probably should start questioning his judgment. Unlike the prejudiced person, the bigot is now making a firm, negative judgment on roads that don't possess certain characteristics.
If he responds, "True. I know a road that didn't appear to have any of those characteristics and it turned out that a few miles down, I found a perfect spot with a lot of cool plants. Most roads, though, if they don't have all three characteristics, or at least two of them, are roads that the state may as well as build malls on because you ain't going to find any decent plants on them," you probably already know who you are dealing with and will ignore anything he has to say. He's made it clear there are good roads and bad roads all based on three characteristics.
No matter what topic one is talking about, the critical thinker will pick up on the clues to help him determine just how much faith he should put into what one is saying. And, being honest with ourselves and accepting that we, too, hold the same biases and prejudices as anyone else, we can carefully choose our words and organize our thoughts so as not to be incorrectly judged as a bigot or racist/homophobic.
Carried to the extreme, this natural tendency to categorize and stereotype becomes destructive. It allows us to justify slavery, segregation, wars, riots, marginalization of various groups of people, and violence against individual people belonging to the group of "them."
There's a fine line between bias and prejudism. There's a fine line between prejudism and bigotry. And there's a fine line between bigotry and a racism/homophobia.
As individuals, no matter how open-minded we may believe we are, we need to be truthful with ourselves and accept that we all carry our biases and prejudices inside us. Once we accept that, then we have to recognize when our prejudices are coloring our thinking and what we are saying.
At this point one might be thinking, "This guy is full of it." Let's take a simple example to illustrate what I have just stated.
An avid gardener takes a road trip every weekend looking for plants to add to his garden. Since he knows the habitat where the plants normally grow, he knows what he is looking for. As he winds down back country roads, he passes many side roads. Some he takes, some he passes up. Initially, how he makes these decisions is purely random. A road is a road to him and all are equal. He exhibits no bias.
After a couple of weekends of searching for plants and finding some really cool ones, on his next trip he starts consciously making a decision of which roads to turn on and which ones to pass up. Specifically, he has learned from his past trips that winding roads, roads with cool sounding names like Snake Creek Road and roads that slope slightly downward through a forest of thick trees hold the most promise to finding really unique plants. If the road holds all three qualities, he knows he will almost definitely find something really cool. As he drives through the country, he specifically looks for these roads. He is now showing his bias by ignoring roads that don't have at least one of the three characteristics he's looking for. When he tells his gardening friends, "If you want to find really cool plants, you might have better luck finding them if you go down winding roads or roads with cool names or roads that slope downward into a forest," he is expressing his bias.
His bias moves towards prejudism when he exclusively searches for the roads with at least one of those characteristics and almost always turns down any other road. When he tells his gardening friends, "If you want to find really cool plants, you're best bet is to find roads that are winding or have really cool names or slope downward into a forest. If you find a road with all three characteristics, you'll surely find the plants you want," he is expressing his prejudism. The switch is subtle, but now he promotes roads having at least one of the three characteristics to the exclusion of any other road and even implies that any other road just isn't good enough.
His prejudism moves towards bigotry when he turns down a road that doesn't have any of those characteristics despite being told that the road might have what he is looking for. When he tells his friends, "Oh no. That road isn't a winding road, has a plain name, and doesn't slope downward into a forest so the plant I want can't be down there," he is expressing his bigotry.
His bigotry moves towards racism/homophobia when he seeks out roads with all three characteristics, settles on roads with at least two of the characteristics, begrudgingly accepts roads with one characteristic without holding high hopes for it, and refuses to go down any other road. When he tells friends, "If the road is winding, has a cool name, and slopes downwards through a forest, those are the best roads to find cool plants. A road with two of those characteristics ain't bad, and if it only has one, you'll most likely be wasting your time. Forget about going down any other road. You'll only find trash plants on them," he is expressing his racism/homophobia.
Notice how there is a kernel of truth to his assumptions about the roads where he thinks he will most likely find some cool plants. Winding roads are usually less travelled because they take longer to get through than straight roads. A lot of times, the cool sounding names imply something about the characteristic of the road. Snake Creek Road, for example, might have been named after the winding creek the road parallels. Cool plants can be found along creeks. Roads sloping down through a forest implies two things: first, the area might not be developed and the downward slopes implies a possible creek, stream, or fertile valley where cool plants love to grow.
Notice, though, that as he moves from bias to racism/homophobia, he moves away from the assumptions above, and begins judging good roads from bad roads based on those assumptions and the assumptions, themselves, move from assumptions to facts.
If one were to point out to him that he can't judge the likilihood of finding cool plants based on the appearance of the first couple of hundred yards of the road because any or all of those characteristics can change a mile or two down the road, his response would be a good clue as to how much faith you should put in his advice.
If he responds, "True, but there's only so many hours of daylight and you want to increase your chances of finding cool plants, try to pick the roads with any of those characteristics," you can probably believe him because he appears to have used reason and logic to come to his conclusion.
If he responds, "True, but a lot of times you'll come up empty-handed whereas if you stayed on the road you were on, a couple of miles down might have been the better road to choose," you can still probably believe him because he is still using reason and logic. Notice, however, the subtle switch in his judgment. I biased person will agree with you about judging the road prematurely, but just wants to increaase his odds, the prejudiced person slips in the nuance that roads that hold none of the three characteristics are a waste of time. It's subtle, but it's there.
If he responds, "True, but most of the times those other roads will get you nothing so why waste your time?", you probably should start questioning his judgment. Unlike the prejudiced person, the bigot is now making a firm, negative judgment on roads that don't possess certain characteristics.
If he responds, "True. I know a road that didn't appear to have any of those characteristics and it turned out that a few miles down, I found a perfect spot with a lot of cool plants. Most roads, though, if they don't have all three characteristics, or at least two of them, are roads that the state may as well as build malls on because you ain't going to find any decent plants on them," you probably already know who you are dealing with and will ignore anything he has to say. He's made it clear there are good roads and bad roads all based on three characteristics.
No matter what topic one is talking about, the critical thinker will pick up on the clues to help him determine just how much faith he should put into what one is saying. And, being honest with ourselves and accepting that we, too, hold the same biases and prejudices as anyone else, we can carefully choose our words and organize our thoughts so as not to be incorrectly judged as a bigot or racist/homophobic.
Repeat Play of 2004?
Flashback, election year 2004: stalemate in Iraq with hundreds upon hundreds of American deaths, no measurable success in the War on Terror, thousands upon thousands of jobs outsourced to India and other developing countries, social security being held together with duct tape, and an overall gloomy outlook by the average American.
Despite the real problems facing the nation, Massachusetts stood on the verge of legalizing same sex marriage. The republicans, seizing the opportunity to divert attention from their failures, mobilized the far right and fundamentalist. Election year 2004 will go down in history as the gay bashing year. The only real problem facing America in 2004 was the homosexuals wanted to marry. The public gay bashing blamed homosexuals for everything from destroying the American family to soiling the great institution of marriage to unraveling the very fabric that holds our Great Nation together.
The fear that allowing homosexuals to marry would mean Mom, baseball, and apple pie would be replaced with two mommies, gay pride parades, and lattes topped with whipped cream and a cherry on top mobilized the far right. The world was fine, but the homosexuals were coming! Sixteen states adopted anti-gay marriage amendments to their constitutions. Republicans playing on the homosexual fear retained majority control. President Bush may have even been helped at the polls by the gay bashing frenzy.
Fast forward to election year 2006 and beyond: stalemate in Iraq with thousands upon thousands of American deaths, no measurable success in the War on Terror, America becomes the largest exporter of jobs, social security is held together with band aids since duct tape is too expensive, energy prices soar higher than a bald eagle can fly, and the average American’s outlook has sunk from gloomy to pessimistic doom.
The average American wants change. Here’s what he’ll get: heavy hitting gay bashing.
The stage is already set. Fundamentalists in Massachusetts have scrapped the referendum that would have nullified same sex marriage - but granted civil unions to homosexuals - in favor of a referendum that would ban any legislation that potentially treated same sex couples as a married couple. That means no marriage, no civil unions, and no domestic partnership benefits. Six other states will decide whether or not to add a ban on same sex marriage to their constitutions and sixteen states will decide if same sex couples should be allowed to act as foster parents or adopt children. And next month, the Senate is expected to vote, again, on adding an amendment to the Constitution banning same sex marriage.
As election time nears - and beyond - expect the gay bashing to take center stage in a repeat play of election year 2004.
Republican candidates will take a firm stand on the side of the traditional family. They’ll kow-tow their way around the issues of civil unions, foster parents, and adoptions by same sex couples without ever giving a firm stand for or against. Only in states overwhelmingly homophobic will they dare to openly join the gay bashers, like Georgia. Voters in Georgia overwhelmingly passed a ban on same sex marriage by a margin of 76%, but a lower court ruled the proposed amendment unconstitutional on technical grounds. The State Supreme Court has put a rush on hearing the case to clear the way for a new referendum. With such overwhelming support for a ban, you can bet Republican candidates from that state will have no problem jumping on the gay bashing bandwagon.
Democrats, feeling the sting from the 2004 election, will be more discreet in handling the same sex issues. In more liberal states, like Vermont, which already has civil unions, they’ll most likely agree to civil unions, but stand firm against marriage. In more conservative states, they’ll quietly cheer the gay bashing bandwagon. In Georgia, for example, the Republican governor, Sonny Perdue, quickly announced he would have a new, more constitutionally sound referendum to ban same sex marriage before the voters in November. His two Democratic opponents, Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor and Secretary of State Cathy Cox rushed to support the Governor’s move.
Don’t be swayed by the gay bashing sideshow. It’s a ploy to distract the average voter from the real failures of our incumbents and the real problems facing our country. Tune out the candidates on the homophobic bandwagon and the candidates cheering the bandwagon on. Perk your ears up to the candidates who distance themselves from the sideshow by downplaying the significance of same sex issues and, instead, try to address the genuine problems the average American faces. Really perk your ears up to the candidate who dares to jump in front of the bandwagon and declare the rhetoric for what it is: an attempt to enshrine bigotry in our laws, state constitutions, and US Constitution. That candidate may be the closest thing to an honest politician we could ask for.
On the other hand, we could let the rhetoric blind us and have a repeat of 2004 in November 2006 and 2008. The losers, of course, will be homosexuals who will once again be relegated to the margins of our society and denied basic rights most everyone else takes for granted. The real losers, however, will be the average American who will be stuck with homophobic conservatives and wishy-washy liberals who are keen on public opinion, but empty on solutions to the real issues.
If you're gay in America, it'll be a rough two and a half years ahead.
Despite the real problems facing the nation, Massachusetts stood on the verge of legalizing same sex marriage. The republicans, seizing the opportunity to divert attention from their failures, mobilized the far right and fundamentalist. Election year 2004 will go down in history as the gay bashing year. The only real problem facing America in 2004 was the homosexuals wanted to marry. The public gay bashing blamed homosexuals for everything from destroying the American family to soiling the great institution of marriage to unraveling the very fabric that holds our Great Nation together.
The fear that allowing homosexuals to marry would mean Mom, baseball, and apple pie would be replaced with two mommies, gay pride parades, and lattes topped with whipped cream and a cherry on top mobilized the far right. The world was fine, but the homosexuals were coming! Sixteen states adopted anti-gay marriage amendments to their constitutions. Republicans playing on the homosexual fear retained majority control. President Bush may have even been helped at the polls by the gay bashing frenzy.
Fast forward to election year 2006 and beyond: stalemate in Iraq with thousands upon thousands of American deaths, no measurable success in the War on Terror, America becomes the largest exporter of jobs, social security is held together with band aids since duct tape is too expensive, energy prices soar higher than a bald eagle can fly, and the average American’s outlook has sunk from gloomy to pessimistic doom.
The average American wants change. Here’s what he’ll get: heavy hitting gay bashing.
The stage is already set. Fundamentalists in Massachusetts have scrapped the referendum that would have nullified same sex marriage - but granted civil unions to homosexuals - in favor of a referendum that would ban any legislation that potentially treated same sex couples as a married couple. That means no marriage, no civil unions, and no domestic partnership benefits. Six other states will decide whether or not to add a ban on same sex marriage to their constitutions and sixteen states will decide if same sex couples should be allowed to act as foster parents or adopt children. And next month, the Senate is expected to vote, again, on adding an amendment to the Constitution banning same sex marriage.
As election time nears - and beyond - expect the gay bashing to take center stage in a repeat play of election year 2004.
Republican candidates will take a firm stand on the side of the traditional family. They’ll kow-tow their way around the issues of civil unions, foster parents, and adoptions by same sex couples without ever giving a firm stand for or against. Only in states overwhelmingly homophobic will they dare to openly join the gay bashers, like Georgia. Voters in Georgia overwhelmingly passed a ban on same sex marriage by a margin of 76%, but a lower court ruled the proposed amendment unconstitutional on technical grounds. The State Supreme Court has put a rush on hearing the case to clear the way for a new referendum. With such overwhelming support for a ban, you can bet Republican candidates from that state will have no problem jumping on the gay bashing bandwagon.
Democrats, feeling the sting from the 2004 election, will be more discreet in handling the same sex issues. In more liberal states, like Vermont, which already has civil unions, they’ll most likely agree to civil unions, but stand firm against marriage. In more conservative states, they’ll quietly cheer the gay bashing bandwagon. In Georgia, for example, the Republican governor, Sonny Perdue, quickly announced he would have a new, more constitutionally sound referendum to ban same sex marriage before the voters in November. His two Democratic opponents, Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor and Secretary of State Cathy Cox rushed to support the Governor’s move.
Don’t be swayed by the gay bashing sideshow. It’s a ploy to distract the average voter from the real failures of our incumbents and the real problems facing our country. Tune out the candidates on the homophobic bandwagon and the candidates cheering the bandwagon on. Perk your ears up to the candidates who distance themselves from the sideshow by downplaying the significance of same sex issues and, instead, try to address the genuine problems the average American faces. Really perk your ears up to the candidate who dares to jump in front of the bandwagon and declare the rhetoric for what it is: an attempt to enshrine bigotry in our laws, state constitutions, and US Constitution. That candidate may be the closest thing to an honest politician we could ask for.
On the other hand, we could let the rhetoric blind us and have a repeat of 2004 in November 2006 and 2008. The losers, of course, will be homosexuals who will once again be relegated to the margins of our society and denied basic rights most everyone else takes for granted. The real losers, however, will be the average American who will be stuck with homophobic conservatives and wishy-washy liberals who are keen on public opinion, but empty on solutions to the real issues.
If you're gay in America, it'll be a rough two and a half years ahead.
Friday, May 26, 2006
Hypocrits Exposed
Wow! Two in one week. And this one's related to the last one! Sometimes, the far right just makes it too easy....
For those of you who may be new to this blog, I am referring to Mark Hyman, general manager of Sinclair Broadcasting, home station of Fox News. I run a challenge over at my MSN group, Boston Tea Party Protests. The challenge is simple; watch your local Fox News program for the general manager's editorial and respond to it. (Complete challenge with past responses, Fox News - The Point.)
This time around, he decided to tackle a University's outcry over the librarian's desire to make the homophobic book, The Marketing of Evil, mandatory reading for all incoming freshman.
He certainly doesn't want California adding sexual orientation of historical figures to its textbooks, but has no qualms about stating the sexual orientation of newsmakers in his editorials if it casts them as raving lunatics - or at least unreasonable.
Mark Hyman wrote:
Faculty members at the Ohio State University at Mansfield voted 21-0 to condemn librarian Scott Savage. Professors threatened, attacked and called him names in emails. A pair of openly homosexual professors filed a sexual harassment complaint against Savage alleging fear and unease about being gay while Savage was still on campus. The school began an investigation.
Did Savage touch someone inappropriately? Did he use foul or degrading language? What was his unspeakable offense? Scott Savage submitted the titles of four books for possible inclusion in the school's freshmen reading list. That's it.
One book uncovered intellectual frauds such as Alfred Kinsey, an entomologist that is someone who studies insects who called himself a "sex researcher," and who used convicted sex felons and pedophiles in his studies.
After intense public pressure and a threatened lawsuit, the school dismissed the sexual harassment complaint. However, the problem still exists. A neo-fascist attitude exists among several of the faculty at OSU Mansfield. Tolerance and diversity are simply disingenuous slogans used by academics who are neither tolerant nor accept diverse ideas.
The question now is whether the school will sanction those professors who engaged in witch hunt tactics against Scott Savage.
And that's The Point.
I'm Mark Hyman.
My Response:
Two days ago, you objected to California including the sexual orientation of historical figures in its text books. Today, your editorial explicitly states the sexual orientation of two professors. I wonder what the difference is. Maybe the answer lay hidden in your editorial.
A devout Christian librarian wanted a book, The Marketing of Evil, to be required reading for all freshman. Note the key word required - not suggested. The book is the conservative Christian right’s homophobic explanation of the gay agenda, a make believe agenda.
The first clue of homophobia is its desire to rely on, and greatly exaggerate, rumors about Kinsey’s sex life and mental state. Gay hate groups such as Concerned Women of America and the American Family Association give it rave reviews. Kinsey is the archenemy of the far right because his research led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness.
The second clue is "World Net Daily" published the book. For the critical thinkers in your audience, "World Net Daily" is better known as "World Nut Daily". Enough said.
Now we have our answer why text books shouldn’t mention the sexual orientation of historical figures, but mentioning sexual orientation in editorials and the news is perfectly acceptable. If mentioning the sexual orientation casts homosexuals as raving lunatics, or in even the slightest negative light, tell everyone; otherwise, don’t mention it because everyone might start thinking homosexuals are normal.
That’s why the news will report stories about pedophiles and gay pedophiles as if there’s a difference. Critical thinkers in your audience don’t miss that one, either. I hope your reporters rely on more reputable sources for their stories than the crap…ooops… "questionable" sources you base your editorials on.
For those of you who may be new to this blog, I am referring to Mark Hyman, general manager of Sinclair Broadcasting, home station of Fox News. I run a challenge over at my MSN group, Boston Tea Party Protests. The challenge is simple; watch your local Fox News program for the general manager's editorial and respond to it. (Complete challenge with past responses, Fox News - The Point.)
This time around, he decided to tackle a University's outcry over the librarian's desire to make the homophobic book, The Marketing of Evil, mandatory reading for all incoming freshman.
He certainly doesn't want California adding sexual orientation of historical figures to its textbooks, but has no qualms about stating the sexual orientation of newsmakers in his editorials if it casts them as raving lunatics - or at least unreasonable.
Mark Hyman wrote:
Faculty members at the Ohio State University at Mansfield voted 21-0 to condemn librarian Scott Savage. Professors threatened, attacked and called him names in emails. A pair of openly homosexual professors filed a sexual harassment complaint against Savage alleging fear and unease about being gay while Savage was still on campus. The school began an investigation.
Did Savage touch someone inappropriately? Did he use foul or degrading language? What was his unspeakable offense? Scott Savage submitted the titles of four books for possible inclusion in the school's freshmen reading list. That's it.
One book uncovered intellectual frauds such as Alfred Kinsey, an entomologist that is someone who studies insects who called himself a "sex researcher," and who used convicted sex felons and pedophiles in his studies.
After intense public pressure and a threatened lawsuit, the school dismissed the sexual harassment complaint. However, the problem still exists. A neo-fascist attitude exists among several of the faculty at OSU Mansfield. Tolerance and diversity are simply disingenuous slogans used by academics who are neither tolerant nor accept diverse ideas.
The question now is whether the school will sanction those professors who engaged in witch hunt tactics against Scott Savage.
And that's The Point.
I'm Mark Hyman.
My Response:
Two days ago, you objected to California including the sexual orientation of historical figures in its text books. Today, your editorial explicitly states the sexual orientation of two professors. I wonder what the difference is. Maybe the answer lay hidden in your editorial.
A devout Christian librarian wanted a book, The Marketing of Evil, to be required reading for all freshman. Note the key word required - not suggested. The book is the conservative Christian right’s homophobic explanation of the gay agenda, a make believe agenda.
The first clue of homophobia is its desire to rely on, and greatly exaggerate, rumors about Kinsey’s sex life and mental state. Gay hate groups such as Concerned Women of America and the American Family Association give it rave reviews. Kinsey is the archenemy of the far right because his research led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness.
The second clue is "World Net Daily" published the book. For the critical thinkers in your audience, "World Net Daily" is better known as "World Nut Daily". Enough said.
Now we have our answer why text books shouldn’t mention the sexual orientation of historical figures, but mentioning sexual orientation in editorials and the news is perfectly acceptable. If mentioning the sexual orientation casts homosexuals as raving lunatics, or in even the slightest negative light, tell everyone; otherwise, don’t mention it because everyone might start thinking homosexuals are normal.
That’s why the news will report stories about pedophiles and gay pedophiles as if there’s a difference. Critical thinkers in your audience don’t miss that one, either. I hope your reporters rely on more reputable sources for their stories than the crap…ooops… "questionable" sources you base your editorials on.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
It's Not About Sex, Dummy
I run a challenge over at my MSN group, Boston Tea Party Protests. The challenge is simple; watch your local Fox News program for the general manager's editorial and respond to it. (Complete challenge with past responses, Fox News - The Point)
Sometimes, he just makes it too easy. His recent Point: gripes about California proposing to include gays and lesbians in the school's history textbooks. Now, you didn't think I'd be silent on this one, did you?
By all means, click on the links above and let Mark Hyman, General Manager, know how you feel about his Point.
Mark Hyman wrote:
How many children did Alexander Graham Bell have? Was Eli Whitney married? Was Susan B. Anthony a homosexual?
The answers to these questions don't matter. Would Susan B. Anthony's contributions to the women's suffrage movement have been of any greater or lesser value if she were a homosexual? Of course not.
Yet, California state Senator Sheila Kuehl believes public school textbooks should identify sexual orientation when cataloging someone's accomplishments. Her bill, SB 1437, is intended to accomplish just that. Kuehl claims her bill will "ensure that social science curriculum includes the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender peoples." Kuehl argues LGBT people merit special recognition in California school textbooks.
As the most populous state, changes in California textbooks will have a spill-over effect in other states, particularly smaller, rural states that do not have the buying clout to dictate how textbooks are to be written.
Kuehl's obsession with sex overshadows the important lessons of history. And it runs counter to the position held by some people practicing alternative lifestyles who argue their sexual orientation doesn't matter. However, it looks like it may in the California public school system.
And that's The Point.
I'm Mark Hyman.
My Response:
First, homosexuality is no more an "alternative lifestyle" than heterosexuality is a "mainstream lifestyle".
Now a history quiz:
1. What ethnic heritage was Eli Whitney?
2. Was Susan B. Anthony male or female?
3. What color was Albert Einstein?
You should pass easily. If you didn’t know the answers, history books show their pictures.
Let’s make it harder:
1. Was George Washington a heterosexual?
2. How about Abe Lincoln?
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Maybe that was too easy for you too. History books tend to mention wives of historical figures even if the wife made no significant contribution to history other than marriage. You don’t think mentioning the wives is teaching our children about sex, do you?
Before awarding a passing grade, you must answer the bonus question. (No cheating off Google to look smart.)
1. Who was our only bachelor President?
If you had a good history class - something difficult to find in our public schools nowadays - you may have been taught all of our Presidents were married except one. What you most likely weren’t taught is he lived with his male "partner", a senator from Alabama, for sixteen years. You definitely weren’t taught that because of prejudices and hatred towards homosexuals in those times, we may never know if he were gay, despite strong evidence suggesting he was.
If our history books mentioned this president had a male partner of sixteen years, do you really think that’s teaching our children about sex?
Let’s face it. Refusing to mention anything about a gay historical figure’s partner is your way of ensuring that our children won’t think homosexuals are normal people who can grow up to be President.
Not much has changed in attitudes towards homosexuals since James Buchanan’s time.
Sometimes, he just makes it too easy. His recent Point: gripes about California proposing to include gays and lesbians in the school's history textbooks. Now, you didn't think I'd be silent on this one, did you?
By all means, click on the links above and let Mark Hyman, General Manager, know how you feel about his Point.
Mark Hyman wrote:
How many children did Alexander Graham Bell have? Was Eli Whitney married? Was Susan B. Anthony a homosexual?
The answers to these questions don't matter. Would Susan B. Anthony's contributions to the women's suffrage movement have been of any greater or lesser value if she were a homosexual? Of course not.
Yet, California state Senator Sheila Kuehl believes public school textbooks should identify sexual orientation when cataloging someone's accomplishments. Her bill, SB 1437, is intended to accomplish just that. Kuehl claims her bill will "ensure that social science curriculum includes the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender peoples." Kuehl argues LGBT people merit special recognition in California school textbooks.
As the most populous state, changes in California textbooks will have a spill-over effect in other states, particularly smaller, rural states that do not have the buying clout to dictate how textbooks are to be written.
Kuehl's obsession with sex overshadows the important lessons of history. And it runs counter to the position held by some people practicing alternative lifestyles who argue their sexual orientation doesn't matter. However, it looks like it may in the California public school system.
And that's The Point.
I'm Mark Hyman.
My Response:
First, homosexuality is no more an "alternative lifestyle" than heterosexuality is a "mainstream lifestyle".
Now a history quiz:
1. What ethnic heritage was Eli Whitney?
2. Was Susan B. Anthony male or female?
3. What color was Albert Einstein?
You should pass easily. If you didn’t know the answers, history books show their pictures.
Let’s make it harder:
1. Was George Washington a heterosexual?
2. How about Abe Lincoln?
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Maybe that was too easy for you too. History books tend to mention wives of historical figures even if the wife made no significant contribution to history other than marriage. You don’t think mentioning the wives is teaching our children about sex, do you?
Before awarding a passing grade, you must answer the bonus question. (No cheating off Google to look smart.)
1. Who was our only bachelor President?
If you had a good history class - something difficult to find in our public schools nowadays - you may have been taught all of our Presidents were married except one. What you most likely weren’t taught is he lived with his male "partner", a senator from Alabama, for sixteen years. You definitely weren’t taught that because of prejudices and hatred towards homosexuals in those times, we may never know if he were gay, despite strong evidence suggesting he was.
If our history books mentioned this president had a male partner of sixteen years, do you really think that’s teaching our children about sex?
Let’s face it. Refusing to mention anything about a gay historical figure’s partner is your way of ensuring that our children won’t think homosexuals are normal people who can grow up to be President.
Not much has changed in attitudes towards homosexuals since James Buchanan’s time.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Major Change to This Blog
I've neglected this blog because, simply stated, I'm much too busy to post something fresh every day that is gay-related. I am busy writing about many other things. My world quite simply does not revolve around gay issues.
I've decided to expand the blog's scope. Starting today, any of my editorial writing may get posted here whether it is a gay-related topic or not. I'll probably even start talking heavily about native gardening. I've been meaning to write that book for some time now.
So please stay tuned for the coming changes...
I've decided to expand the blog's scope. Starting today, any of my editorial writing may get posted here whether it is a gay-related topic or not. I'll probably even start talking heavily about native gardening. I've been meaning to write that book for some time now.
So please stay tuned for the coming changes...
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
AFA Unhappy With Ford, Again
The gay hate group, American Family Association, is upset with Ford because the company has decided to advertise its vehicles in gay publications and, get this, offers diversity training classes to its employees.
Horrors.
Let's counter the boycott:
Horrors.
Let's counter the boycott:
News Update: The AFA has renewed its call for a boycott of Ford (story). Please support Ford and let them know you aren't paying attention to AFA's call for a boycott.
The American Family Association, a gay hate group, has called on its 2.2 million members to boycott the Ford Motor Company because of Ford's perceived support of the "homosexual agenda" and gay marriage. Following the link, one becomes aware of the main complaints the AFA has of Ford:
- Ford advertises in gay publications with ads tailord to the gay market.
- Ford wishes to sell its vehicles to homosexuals.
- Ford supports diversity training throughout its company and subsidiaries.
- Ford financially contributes to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and the Human Rights Commision.
Specifically, they are asking their members to contact their local Ford dealers and tell them that they will no longer buy Ford products as long as the Ford Motor Company supports the homosexual agenda and gay marriage.
The AFA is the same group who boycotted Disney World because Disney offered domestic partner benefits and held a "gay day." That nine year boycott officially ended practically the same day they announced the Ford boycott.
Show Ford that not everyone is as homophobic as members of the AFA. Contact your local Ford dealer and tell them that despite the boycott call, you plan on remaining or maybe becoming a Ford customer.
To find your local dealer, click on the make of your vehicle below:
Ford Jaguar Lincoln Land Rover Mercury Mazda Volvo
You may also contact the corporate headquarters in Deerborn, MI and tell them what you think about their contributions to the gay community and their push for diversity training in the automotive industry: The link provides an easy to use, online form submission. You may also contact them the old fashioned way:
In United States:
Phone:800-392-3673
800-232-5952 (TDD for the Hearing Impaired)
Mail:
Ford Motor CompanyCustomer Relationship Center
P.O. Box 6248
Dearborn, MI 48126
Hours of Operation:8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (Monday-Friday)
In Canada:
Phone:800-565-3673
Mail:Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited
Customer Relationship Centre
P.O. Box 2000
Oakville, Ontario L6J5E4
Hours of Operation:8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (Monday-Friday)
9:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. ET. (Saturday)
Be sure to let the AFA know how you feel about their boycott, too. I'm sure they'd love to hear from you. (The link takes you to an easy online feedback form for the AFA.)
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Soundoff to Maryland Delgate Dwyer
Last month, Baltimore Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdoch sided with nine gay couples and ruled Maryland’s law defining marriage as between a man and a woman unconstitutional and discriminatory, stating that the law “cannot withstand constitutional challenge.”
Maryland state delegate Don Dwyer (R-Anne Arundel County) immediately vowed to remove the judge from the bench. He made good on his promise the other day. (-story)
It should be noted that Dwyer’s quest to herd the homosexuals back into the closet didn’t start with the judge’s ruling. He also authored legislation to be put on the November ballot that would have banned gay marriages and civil unions. The measure was defeated.
He has found a friend with the gay-hate group, Family Focus. Family Focus wasted no time reporting how Dwyer proposed to “rein in” the activist judges and encouraged their members to contact Dwyer and show their support for his efforts. (“Activist judges”, by the way, is the buzz phrase that defines any judge who, after evaluating the law, rules contrary to how one believes they should have ruled. It’s a favorite phrase among the far right conservatives and conservative Christians.)
Whether or not one favors same sex marriage, alarm bells should be sounding off over Dwyer’s answer to “activist judges.” The legislature’s job is to make laws. The court’s job is to interpret those laws based on current law and prior precedence. If the law is “no good”, it’s the legislature’s job to rewrite the law to address the court’s legal concerns. It is not the legislature’s job to throw out judges who don’t agree with their laws. Otherwise, there would be no point in maintaining a court system.
Please take the time to tell Delegate Don Dwyer how you feel about his latest effort against homosexuals.
·Email: Don_Dwyer@house.state.md.us
·Postal mail: P. O. Box 667
Glen Burnie, MD 21060 – 0667
·Phone: (410) 768-0945
As always, please be professional, courteous and polite in expressing your views. Postal mail carries the most weight with politicians. Phone calls are a close second, emails are a distant third, and anonymous submissions, such as provided here, are at least tabulated if nothing else. Including your real name and contact information always gets the attention of politicians and possibly a thoughtful consideration and sometimes a reply, even if it is a standard form acknowledgement.
To submit a comment anonymously or to use a sample letter, please click here.
Maryland state delegate Don Dwyer (R-Anne Arundel County) immediately vowed to remove the judge from the bench. He made good on his promise the other day. (-story)
It should be noted that Dwyer’s quest to herd the homosexuals back into the closet didn’t start with the judge’s ruling. He also authored legislation to be put on the November ballot that would have banned gay marriages and civil unions. The measure was defeated.
He has found a friend with the gay-hate group, Family Focus. Family Focus wasted no time reporting how Dwyer proposed to “rein in” the activist judges and encouraged their members to contact Dwyer and show their support for his efforts. (“Activist judges”, by the way, is the buzz phrase that defines any judge who, after evaluating the law, rules contrary to how one believes they should have ruled. It’s a favorite phrase among the far right conservatives and conservative Christians.)
Whether or not one favors same sex marriage, alarm bells should be sounding off over Dwyer’s answer to “activist judges.” The legislature’s job is to make laws. The court’s job is to interpret those laws based on current law and prior precedence. If the law is “no good”, it’s the legislature’s job to rewrite the law to address the court’s legal concerns. It is not the legislature’s job to throw out judges who don’t agree with their laws. Otherwise, there would be no point in maintaining a court system.
Please take the time to tell Delegate Don Dwyer how you feel about his latest effort against homosexuals.
·Email: Don_Dwyer@house.state.md.us
·Postal mail: P. O. Box 667
Glen Burnie, MD 21060 – 0667
·Phone: (410) 768-0945
As always, please be professional, courteous and polite in expressing your views. Postal mail carries the most weight with politicians. Phone calls are a close second, emails are a distant third, and anonymous submissions, such as provided here, are at least tabulated if nothing else. Including your real name and contact information always gets the attention of politicians and possibly a thoughtful consideration and sometimes a reply, even if it is a standard form acknowledgement.
To submit a comment anonymously or to use a sample letter, please click here.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
A Couple of Notes About This Site....
I've been gone awhile. My apologies to any readers who may have started an interest in this site. Little Guy Protest has been taking a huge chunk of my time and I've neglected this site. Hopefully, I'll get back in the swing of things and begin posting on a more regular basis again.
Headliners will no longer be a regular feature of this site. The few I have done were fun, but it just plain takes too much time searching for a photo to showcase a oneliner. Once in a blue moon, I may post a headliner, but certainly not on a regular basis.
A big chunk of my time has been occupied with building an online store to help finance the website. Hopefully a grand opening will be announced soon. Once it is opened, I'll definitely be able to spend a bit more time here.
Thank you to my few readers and please, stay tuned....
Mark
Headliners will no longer be a regular feature of this site. The few I have done were fun, but it just plain takes too much time searching for a photo to showcase a oneliner. Once in a blue moon, I may post a headliner, but certainly not on a regular basis.
A big chunk of my time has been occupied with building an online store to help finance the website. Hopefully a grand opening will be announced soon. Once it is opened, I'll definitely be able to spend a bit more time here.
Thank you to my few readers and please, stay tuned....
Mark
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Headliners
Making fun of the news and the people in it...
"Hey, Bush, I'm one of your biggest supporters! Surprised?"
Gay Republican Rebel - story
Friday, October 07, 2005
Headliners
Making fun of the news and the people in it...
"You know, I bet a little blush on the cheeks, darken the eyebrows, some false eyelashes, and let my hair grow out a bit and I could pass for the Church Lady. Maybe I could get one of my preists to doll me up." -
Gay Men Can Be Catholic Priests - story
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Making fun of the news and the people in it...
"I'm mean. I'm a queen. I'm an Aids fighting machine."
Elton donates to Nepal's HIV fight - story
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Headliners
Making fun of the news and the people in it...
"Hmmm, filled out a gay questionaire, huh? Funny, you don't look lesbo to me."
Court Pick Is Unknown Quantity - story
Monday, October 03, 2005
Headliners
Making fun of the news and the people in it...
"If I can't have sex, I'll be damned if I'm going to let those homos have it."
Catholic churches lead signature drive for ban on gay marriage - story
Friday, September 30, 2005
Headliners
Making fun of the news and the people who are in it....
"Wow, this butt plug really does make one feel special!"
Roberts Confirmed Chief Justice - story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
