Hey kids, let’s join the Young Turks guys and take the argument to end birthright citizenship to its logical conclusion…oops. Start packing, y’all.
This is our daily open thread — Rested and tan? Wha…?
Hey kids, let’s join the Young Turks guys and take the argument to end birthright citizenship to its logical conclusion…oops. Start packing, y’all.
This is our daily open thread — Rested and tan? Wha…?
The day started a bit hazy…but cleared up nicely. My eldest likes to take the Otter Crest Loop byway, and in the few minutes it took to get there, the day became crystal clear.
Photos by Zooey
So it was another beautiful day on the Oregon coast — and there were FAR too many people who agreed with me.
This is our daily open thread — Hey look! I didn’t forget and posted on time!
That’s what I call an excellent start.
I’m sure some you out there in the Land of the Interwebs are wondering to yourselves and others, “Why all the pomp and circumstance around removing the heinous Confederate flag?”
I’ll tell you why: Because we were brought up with manners, and it’s best to remember that — always.
Wait…what? Yeah, you heard me — manners.
Had the horrible, shameful Confederate flag been removed from the grounds of the South Carolina statehouse by the on-duty maintenance man, who promptly tucked it under his arm, walked to the nearest garbage bin, deposited said horrible flag, and then kicked over the bin — the way we all wish it had been done (or worse) — the ENTIRE story in the media would be the weeping and wailing over the lack of respect given to an important part of our history. Which would give rise to us missing the damn point. AGAIN. STILL.
The Confederate flag is a part of U.S. history — like it or not. History that is not kind or good, nothing to be proud of, nor is it remotely humane — like much of our history. But like so much of our history, a story was built up around the Confederate flag and the Civil War, and it became romanticized through novels, movies, television series, and even our history books. We found a way to live with ourselves — to generously forgive ourselves — for perpetrating the unforgivable crime of enslaving our fellow human beings to lay the foundation of our promising new nation, and enrich ourselves in the process.
The flag became a fanciful imaginary symbol of “Southern Pride,” whatever that is, and Southern “heritage,” which is claimed to be in no way racist or hateful. But here’s the problem with such notions: They. Are. Not. Reality. The Confederate flag was created and acknowledged as a symbol of the Confederate States of America, whose purpose was to continue slavery and enforce white supremacy, along with other treasonous ideas. More info in this article on Vox.
So the shameful Confederate flag has had more than its fair share of exposure and misplaced pride/nostalgia, and it’s time to put it in the Smithsonian museum with all the other relics, where we’ll teach and learn (re-learn, if necessary) the facts about one of the most terrible times in our history and the fall-out that continues to this very day.
If it takes remembering our manners and a bit of pomp and circumstance to achieve that with a minimum of fuss (or what counts as a lack of fuss these days), I can live with it — because it’s an excellent start.
This is our daily open thread — Let’s brace ourselves for the backlash…
How does anyone get out of primary school without knowing basic facts about our own country? These people think they’re cute, but being so fucking stupid does not qualify as cuteness.
No wonder this country is in such deep shit. So embarrassed…
This is our daily open thread — Get a clue, morans!!
Wingnut radio guy Michael Savage doesn’t like Pope Francis. Earlier this month in the aftermath of the Pope’s Encyclical on Climate Change, Savage blustered that Francis is “a danger to the world . . . a Marxist . . . a wolf in pope’s clothing, he is an eco-wolf in pope’s clothing, he’s a stealth Marxist in religious garb.” He added that the Pope “sounds just like the false prophet in Revelation, an ecumenical spiritual figure directing mankind to worship the Antichrist.
“I think it is up to the Catholic people to turn their backs on this Pope before it is too late, before they wake up and find out that they are in chains, this man is a Marxist through-and-through . . . picked by the New World Order the way Obama was.”
Whew. Sounds like maybe Savage doesn’t much care for Obama either, a fact that he confirmed this last Monday when he said, “Obama’s [been] engaged in a civil war from the day he began . . . this man is trying to burn the country down.”
In another diatribe on Tuesday of this week, Savage continued spouting his irrational fears, hatreds, and lies. He began by saying that Francis is nothing but “a naked Marxist posing as a pope,” then quickly added, “This faker pope is coming to America to talk not to you in the pews, but to prisoners, transgendered [sic] and homeless. You tell me there’s not a worldwide Marxist revolution occurring right under your noses. Go ahead, tell me that, make my day. And if you think it ends well, you’re wrong. Remember how many died under Communism. A hundred million.”
As with virtually ALL right wing pundits and spokespeople, Savage NEVER offers a single verifiable data shred to help confirm even one of his diatribes. In that regard, he resembles the right wing Godmen who shout fearmongering epithets to their various flocks. Just last Sunday, for example, Tony Perkins, in his sermon at Robert Jeffress’ Baptist church in Dallas, stated that “when we as Christians here in America shrink back from living for Jesus and we tolerate our own government’s hostility to Christianity, terrorists and tyrants in other governments will see that as a green light to persecute and to kill our brothers and sisters, and we cannot tolerate that as Americans.”
Note the undercurrent premises that the US government is hostile to Christianity and that such anti-Christian hostility opens the door, for some nonelaborated reason, to foreign or terrorist attack. Clearly the logic is nonsensical, the conclusion yet one more baseless five-star lie designed to impose irrational fear on whichever percentage of the congregation is susceptible to same.
And speaking of five-star lies spoken to the various right wing flocks by their right wing “flockers,” here are ten (at least!) real beauties:
I won’t bore you with any specific details (a mere click of the link will handle that little task), but in the interest of brevity, here’s the list of all the things that are SURE to happen thanks to the Supreme Court’s recent gay marriage ruling:
1. Terrorist attacks
2. Forced gay sex
4. Food shortages
5. Jailed pastors
6. Media censorship
7. Taking kids from their parents
8. Civil war
9. Pedophilia legalized
10. Christianity criminalized
The word “bizarre” should perhaps be granted a new and expanded definition now that the American far right wing has completely fallen off the sanity bandwagon. And when considering the INsanity that results, there is one more hyper case that can’t go unmentioned.
Theodore Shoebat: Execute Gays And Gay-Accepting Christians
Theodore Shoebat is, according to the article, “a viciously anti-gay activist” who has, in the past, advocated gay execution, but this time has expanded the concept to include gay-accepting Christians as well. In his words:
Since homosexuality is against the sacrament of marriage, which is the building block of society, then it is against the common good, and the very Faith of our civilization, and thus is an enemy to the Christian people and should be treated as sedition. Let the heretics who believe in such license read where St. Paul refers to these sodomites as “deserving of death,” and also those who “approve of those who practice them” (Romans 1:32), and let them dare say that homosexuality should be allowed in a Christian society.
Notice the biblical references, and from the New Testament yet! Apparently Michael Savage (that’s his stage name — his real name is Michael Alan Weiner — pretty sure I understand why he changed it) isn’t the definitive “Savage Beast” that hangs out in Wingnuttistan. I am, in fact, pretty much convinced that ALL Wingnuttistanians are deserving of the title, most especially the faux Christian contingent that preaches nothing other than their God-based insanity. Each and every one of the buggers — preacher, pundit, candidate, radio jock, pick one or all — pretends to speak truth until that which he says over and again ultimately proves that he lies . . .
It’s curious how, some 150 years ago the reclusive poet Emily Dickinson managed to sum up each parcel in and of today’s far right wing Savage Beast. She put it this way:
He preached upon “Breadth” till it argued him narrow —
The Broad are too broad to define
And of “Truth” until it proclaimed him a Liar —
The Truth never flaunted a Sign —
Simplicity fled from his counterfeit presence
As Gold the Pyrites would shun —
What confusion would cover the innocent Jesus
To meet so enabled a Man!
Indeed. The Savage Beast, aka the Far Right Wing, defined. They each and all ‘preach upon “Truth” until it proclaims them to be liars, very enabled liars!
One has to wonder just exactly what has gone wrong in this country over the last fifty or so years to bring forth such absolutely bizarre and hate/fear-filled rhetoric. Or maybe the country has always been this way, just not so visibly verbal? And how much does faux “Christianity” contribute to the nation’s hate-fear complex? And is said complex unique to America, or does it simply define the dark side of the entire human species?
As we all know, there are times when no matter what one says or how s/he says it, it remains virtually impossible to summarize the ignorant subtleties implicit in various statements of position by those who, in their own definition, are consummate (right wing) experts on the topics at hand. It’s for this reason I’ve decided that today I’m turning the bulk of this post over to a well known far right spokesman, and in the process allowing him to explain, in his own words and without interruption, exactly what is so wrong about a pair of recent Supreme Court decisions.
So. Courtesy of C&L and/or his blog, here’s the complete transcript of Bill O’Reilly’s “Talking Points Memo” of June 29th. It is his response to the Supreme Court’s recent rulings in favor of both the American Care Act and gay marriage. It’s admittedly a somewhat lengthy dissertation, but since it’s typical of O’Reilly, it doesn’t really demand much more than a quick skim to gather in the points he pretends to make. In the skimming process, you’ll notice that O”Reilly does not, as is his habit, spare the vitriol — nor does he offer any hint whatsoever that he’s more than remotely familiar with the Constitution in re those matters he’s chosen to discuss. He does amply demonstrate, however, that ignorance does NOT always define bliss.
Enough chit chat. Here goes, as they say, nothing:
The court’s acceptance of Obamacare and gay marriage was predictable. In fact our “Is It Legal?” team accurately foretold what would happen last week.
The Supreme Court is made up of nine individuals who see America in very different ways. Some see a country that needs to be changed; others believe we are a settled nation where established law should be upheld.
Generally speaking we have an activist court, not judges who are able to put ideology aside.
Chief Justice John Roberts provides a vivid example. He believes the Congress should make laws, not judges. That was the intent of the Founders.
So Roberts jumped through legal hoops to justify Obamacare.
No matter the legal problems, Roberts ignored them, deferring to congressional approval of the affordable healthcare law.
To his credit, Roberts is consistent. He voted against gay marriage because, again, he doesn’t want the court to make law, which the gay nuptial decision does.
Most of the other justices are consistent, as well. They often decide cases through a prism of what they believe to be right for the country, not what our original system of checks and balances dictates.
Here’s how crazy the system has become. Liberal Justices Ginsburg and Kagan each presided over a gay marriage. In Ginsburg’s case, four.
Yet they did not recuse themselves when the issue came before the court.
Come on! We either have a fair legal system or we don’t, and right now we don’t.
The Factor’s philosophy has been consistent for nearly 20 years. I believe every American should have an equal shot to pursue happiness and prosperity, and that the government must provide oversight to provide that opportunity for all.
But I do not believe the government has a right to impose upon me or any other American rules that deny my freedom to express myself, practice my faith, or earn my living.
If a baker believes marriage is a sacrament instituted by his religion, the government should leave the baker alone.
Even though the Supreme Court has now ruled that gay marriage is legal, it has no constitutional right to force anyone to participate in it.
To do so tears up the social contract forged by the Founders.
Americans who sincerely believe that judges do have the authority to redefine marriage have a perfect right to celebrate their victory, provided they are following their consciences.
However, they do not have a right to demonize those who disagree based on the same principle: conscience.
Yesterday Fox News analyst Father Jonathan Morris was walking in New York City close to where the gay pride parade was taking place.
Father Morris reports two men spit on him. He will tell that story on Hannity tonight.
Oppression runs both ways, and all Americans should consider that.
For example, Justice Scalia wrote a well thought out dissent to the gay marriage decision. He was immediately mocked:
STEPHEN COLBERT, COMEDIAN: “Now, Justice Scalia was a little more nuanced in his criticism – writing that if he ever joined an opinion that began the way Justice Kennedy’s majority decision did, quote, ‘I would hide my head in a bag.’ I could have sworn he was already hiding his head in a flesh-toned cinch sack. Please come on my show, sir. Scalia also took issue with the majority’s view that marriage is about free expression, grumbling ‘Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands what one can prudently say.’ Which is both a fiery dissent and the world’s longest Lockhorn comic.”
In a few months Colbert will be competing against Fallon and Kimmel, both talented and successful guys. He might want to think about alienating traditional Americans to the extent he has; could be very bad for business.
The deciding vote in the gay marriage decision was Justice Kennedy, a good man.
He clearly and honestly wrote that his decision was primarily based on emotion, that compassion dictates gay Americans have equal marital status.
Thus Kennedy forged a legal opinion using the concept of greater good. There is obviously nothing in the Constitution that allows the redefinition of marriage.
On a strictly constitutional basis, that decision has to come from Congress because it is law.
The Supreme Court deviated from that dictum, as it has in the past for political and personal reasons.
On healthcare the issue is again greater good. Obamacare is obviously yet another federal entitlement program designed to help poor Americans at the expense of non-poor Americans.
The president sold the law on the basis that it is a benefit for all. But only his party bought that; not one Republican member of Congress voted for it.
Subsequently, health insurance costs have risen for many working Americans, and a significant number of doctors are refusing to take government mandated insurance programs.
But the four liberal judges don’t really care about the overall impact of Obamacare.
They want free healthcare for the poor and will find a legal justification for it no matter what the actual law says.
Add in Roberts and Kennedy and presto, another enormous social safety net that benefits the have-nots survives a valid legal challenge.
The sad truth is most Americans have no idea what’s really happening to their country. These are complicated issues where both sides have legitimate points. But some important decisions are being made outside Constitutional authority.
If the trend toward big government and political activism by judges continues, the liberty of the individual is going to take a huge hit.
Already we have a guy running for president, Senator Bernie Sanders, who does not oppose a top income tax rate of 90 percent.
Conservative and independent-minded Americans should well understand what is occurring. Uber-left politicians and judges aided by a compliant media and vicious smear merchants on the net now have political cover and momentum.
They are hell-bent on crushing traditional beliefs and competitive capitalism, replacing them with so-called tolerance and forced asset sharing.
The tenets of victimization and grievance may soon dominate public policy even at the expense of public safety and majority opinion.
You see, in the brave new progressive world the rights and welfare of each American really don’t matter.
The promise of collective social justice dominates, and you will be dismissed as unworthy or even be branded a bigot if you get in the way of that promise.
That is the reality of America as we head into the 2016 presidential campaign.
Spread the word.
And that’s the memo.
There’s really not much to say in response to that “speech” other than to point out the fact (obvious to most anyone with a functioning mind) that O’Reilly is wrong on virtually every point he tries to make. I won’t waste my time or yours by citing chapter and verse, will simply cite one of his many premises, the one in which he states that There is obviously nothing in the Constitution that allows the redefinition of marriage, and then point out that there is nothing in the Constitution that ‘defines’ marriage in the first place. In fact, the word “marriage” appears in the Constitution as amended exactly the same number of times as do each the words God, Jesus, Christian, sin, sex — ZERO; right wing political “accuracy” regardless of source therein defined.
Overall, the one thing O’Reilly and his ilk, including each and every passenger in the Republican Clown Car, remind me of is statement which seems to almost entirely sum up their aims, their goals, and their collective philosophy. It reads:
“The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life. Turbulent instincts must be replaced by a national discipline as the guiding principle of our national life.”
Sounds like one of the Presidential candidates, but which one? Huckabee, maybe, or Santorum? Carson? Cruz? One of the other ten announced so far? Or maybe one who’s still waiting in the wings?
The answer, regardless of how unlikely it sounds, is none of the above. Nor is it a paragraph from the Republican Party Platform for 2016 or from any other year. Nope. Those were word spoken on the first day of February, 1933, by Adolf Hitler in his “Proclamation to the German Nation at Berlin.” That’s not to say the GOP couldn’t use it, that it wouldn’t fit. I mean it’s really close to a perfect summary of their implicit goals, and I’m sure it wouldn’t be copyright infringement if they did so choose to put the words to current use.
And I’m sure O’Reilly would spout praise, for once, instead of his typical streams of ignorant vitriol.
Saturday morning, Bree Newsome took matters into her own hands and removed the Confederate flag — a flag that celebrates a heritage of racism, slavery, and treason — from in front of the South Carolina State House.
Newsome and others calling themselves “concerned citizens” released a statement explaining, “Deciding to do what the SC Legislature has thus far neglected to do, the group took down the symbol of white supremacy that inspired the massacre, continued to fly at full mast in defiance of South Carolina’s grief, and flew in defiance of everyone working to actualize a more equitable Carolinian future.”
The flag was soon replaced, but the image of Newsome climbing that pole and removing it is indelible.
This is our daily open thread — Discuss.