Use this thread to post whatever links you want (self-linking is encouraged), and to discuss whatever you’d like.
Bean sent me this “Subnormality” strip which totally cracked me up. Click through to see the whole thing.
I also liked this story on Boing Boing:
The Star Tribune reports that dozens of bars in the Twin Cities are holding “theater nights” and declaring everyone in the bar to be an actor. By law, performers are allowed to smoke during theatrical performances.
I’m fond of this loophole, and hope it leads to the logical outcome: Vice cops grimly viewing a bar full of “actors” to confirm that they’re all really playing characters, not being themselves enjoying a smoke, while drunk smokers break out into desperately improvised musical numbers.
Oh, a new webcomic with funny characters and good art. Thanks, Amp, I needed that. On behalf of my productivity this week, already hosed by the re-discovery of DosBox and “Master of Magic”, fuck you very much.
Updated: oh, there were only 60 or so in the archive. Well, that didn’t take long, so I forgive you. THIS time.
In another thread, Ampersand wrote:
Perhaps the reason that, say, Jewish leaders aren’t called upon to denounce Farrakhan is that it’s sort of a given, ya? Same thinking for the reason that people don’t call on Obama to, denounce the continued use of the Confederate flag, or that Hilary isn’t called upon to denounce Sexist Men for Life, etc etc. Generally, we only call on politicians to “denounce” other people or groups who claim to be aligned with the politician in question.
(see, e.g. your “please get off my side” comment in the other Obama thread. Great comment–I agree it was inappropriate–and a great example: you didn’t want to be associated with it, and you needed to make that clear. OTOH, the ANTI-obama people weren’t associated with it at all, since he claimed to be an Obama supporter, so they had no need to disassociate themselves.)
Why is it a given that black people would be sympathetic to Farrakhan? I’m white, so am I automatically sympathetic to Pat Roberts? I’m a man, so am I automatically sympathetic to Ted Bundy?
Barry: Please note I lasted less than a week.
Since this is an open thread, I have a question for Amp: As a cartoonist, who do you want to win the election? That is, who will provide the best material and, if you ever draw caricatures of politicians, be the most fun to draw?
You’d be better off asking Kevin (who posted just before you, breaking his “I won’t post on Alas anymore” pledge), who is an excellent caricaturist. I’m not good at drawing caricatures, and prefer to avoid doing them. That may be part of the reason most of my political cartoons are about “issues,” rather than about particular politicians.
As for who’d provide the best material, I’d prefer a Democrat, because I feel much more radical drawing anti-power cartoons when the person in power is a Democrat. When they’re a Republican, making fun of them makes me feel like just another mainstream liberal cartoonist, which is a bit of a blow to my self-image. :-)
Kevin: Duly noted, you weak thing, you. Welcome back.
I’m fond of this loophole, and hope it leads to the logical outcome
I’m hoping it leads to that loophole being removed from the law. Actors don’t need to smoke on stage, anyhow. Ruins good theater. If the character smokes the actor can use a prop cigarette and, you know, act.
Or, l33tminion, we could try freedom.
Just a thought.
Well, since Amp insists: Most politicians are interesting to caricature, as they present unique challenges of physical characteristics, persona and political philosophy. Either Democratic candidate would be great, because we could develop a new (gee whiz, progressive?) approach to caricature simply due to having a woman or a black man as a constant subject of satire; that is, even mainstream political cartoonists would have to outgrow their stereotypical defaults of representing gender and race. At least, that would be my hope. So far, the evidence suggests the contrary; but these things, like geological change, take time.
For me, personally, having a Democrat with progressive pretensions would be more challenging, because it is less obvious what I, as a leftoid, would criticize/satirize. Granted, it’s not like the reactionaries and authoritarians will suddenly poof away with a wave of a Good Witch wand, so the Right will continue to be fodder for satire. But people in power, even those who tend to agree with you, should not be off limits. In fact, they should be more IN limits, as it were. And regardless of ideology, human beings are entertainingly fallible.
Also: I watched Fred Armisen’s portrayal of Obama with interest. Armisen is usually a good comic actor and impersonator, but I think he is still trying to sort out how to approach Obama, whose cool and composed demeanor offer few obvious targets or signs of eccentricity. In a way, this may be Obama’s biggest fault: he doesn’t offer much for people to hang onto, either good or bad. Even Clinton’s attempt to openly mock his hifalutin speechifying didn’t quite hit the mark (granted, a candidate openly mocking a party rival has its own problems.) So Obama offers the more interesting challenge, in a way.
Or, l33tminion, we could try freedom.
For that matter, we need to legalize hunting with guns in urban and other densely populated areas! Freeeeeedommmmmm!!!!!!!!!
Moderately Insane: Why not have a finding of “innocence” available in sexual assault cases, as an anti-MRA tactic?
Oh, and Kevin:
It’s not.
No, of course not.
If someone claims to support you, and claims to speak “for” you or in “your” interest then it’s a little more problematic. I understand Farrakhan to have done this regarding blacks in general. There are other things that I won’t repeat because I can’t assess the accuracy in my memory.
So if Pat Robertson claimed to speak for all white males and that fact is brought up in conversation then yes, as a white male I would point out that he sure as hell doesn’t speak for me. If I were a politician running for national office (and therefore with some obligation to, unfortunately, keep track of what he publicly says) I might be obliged to disavow it spontaneously.
However, if Pat just so happens to be a white male, then what he says isn’t especially relevant.
Farrakhan is an intelligent man, and he has in the past claimed that he speaks for groups who probably don’t agree with his message. That’s probably why Obama is being asked to clarify his own stance regarding Farrakhan’s message.
Okay, well, David Duke spent some time claiming to speak for white males. If anyone had asked me if I thought David Duke spoke for me, I’d be pretty insulted.
Timothy McVeigh claims he was acting on behalf of all white people. He was a registered republican and member of the NRA.
I didn’t see any of the republicans who heaped praise and received praise from the NRA expected to denounce McVeigh.
The standard isn’t, and shouldn’t be “anyone with any loose connection I approve of unless I denounce them.” That is, quite literally, McCarthyist tactics.
Unless Obama has specifically praised Farrakhan in the past, expecting a denunciation is insane. The best you have is a pastor praising him for one respect or another, and Obama already saying “I don’t agree with everything my pastor says.” which should be the fucking end of it.
Meanwhile, there’s the “dude vote”.
Wow. I mean, just wow.
I *used* to be a waitress at a successful tavern making good money.
Thanks, people who are looking out for my own best interest! Now the tavern is completely empty, because people can go 2 miles down the road to the next municipality, which allows smoking. All of us waitstaff started having trouble with pesky things like eating, and paying rent.
Which is all ironic, since the smoking ban here was passed because “it’s not fair to expect bar workers to have an unsafe environment!!!”
I was told to self-link which is precisely what i shall do :) I currently have an excellent guest post up on masculinity, check it out.
I don’t think there’s any reason to presume that a black pastor is by default aligned with Farrahkhan.
For that matter, we need to legalize hunting with guns in urban and other densely populated areas! Freeeeeedommmmmm!!!!!!!!!
Now we’re talking. With some seriousness; here in Illinois we have “forest preserves”. Think “county park”. The Cook County Forest Preserves are overrun with deer because back in the good old days the European settlers almost wiped them out and on that basis also wiped out their predators. The deer have come back. With a vengance, raising holy hell with the ecosystem because they eat up all the vegetation and browse that the smaller animals need. But there’s no predators anymore, no bears and big cats and wolves. Everytime that the suggestion is made, “Hey, let’s close the preserves for a weekend and do a hunt” the anti-hunters get going and start coming up with ideas like running around with dart guns filled with contraceptives or capturing deer and moving them to other forest preserves. Now, we’re talking bow hunts for the most part, so it’s not like we have to worry about passing cars a 1/2 mile away. Du Page County next door seems to be able to carry this off without killing anyone.
[ /rant ]
Anyway – here in Illinois we just banned smoking in bars and restaurants and just about anywhere in public. Since it’s statewide, the proportion of business lost to places that still allow smoking is minimal. But business is still down for the bars – seems that smokers will stay home and drink rather than go out to a bar they can’t smoke in. The employees are torn between “Gee, it’s nice to go to work and not have to breathe all that smoke” and “Gee, I’m making less money”. The nanny state strikes again.
Aaaaand, the U.S. District Attorney has just made it public that “Official A” in Rezko’s extortion trial indictment is none other than Gov. Rod Blagojevich. He denies knowing that Rezko (the guy who helped Sen. Obama buy his house) was extorting millions of dollars from businessmen for his re-election campaign. Ex-Gov. Ryan said the same thing about the people in the Secretary of State’s office that were taking bribes to pay into his re-election campaign back during the “Safe Roads” trials. He’s currently incarcerated. We’ll see how Blago does once Rezko gets convicted and starts dealing.
Subnormality, eh? There goes 30 minutes of my life I’ll never get back. I guess that’ll get added to my list.
“it’s not fair to expect bar workers to have an unsafe environment!!!”
Well, it’s NOT fair to expect bar workers to have to work in an unsafe environment. The fact that people can go to the next town to smoke in the next tavern is a reason to ban smoking in public establishments EVERYWHERE, not nowhere. Unless you think it’s fine and dandy to expect servers to be subjected to secondhand smoke at work.
And Robert, it should be perfectly obvious to you that your freedom to smoke ends at the tip of my pulmonary system.
I’m torn on this one, I really am. On the one hand, employers have an obligation to provide an employee a workplace that is as safe as practical. Machinery should be safe to operate. Noxious fumes and gases should not be emitted by machines, chemicals being used, etc.
OTOH, this interferes with the rights of the bar patrons. It smacks of “we know what’s best for you, so we’ll make sure you can’t smoke even though it’s legal.”
There are inherent dangers in any job. A carpenter can put a nail though their shoe with a nail gun. A traffic cop can get run over. Or shot.
To say that one person’s freedom to smoke ends at the tip of the other person’s pulmonary system oversimplifies things, I think. If you don’t like that job, you can leave and go work on the waitstaff of a restaurant that doesn’t allow smoking. Or you can get another job entirely. To force an employer to put guards, etc., on a piece of machinery so as to minimize the chance that a moment’s inattention will cost you your hand is one thing. To force the machine to be designed in such a fashion that it is impossible to hurt yourself entirely is in many cases impossible. And here we’re not talking about a machine; we’re talking about other humans (the bar customers) who also have rights.
Being a non-smoker and not spending too much time in bars, this doesn’t affect me much and I lean towards “Good – let’s make smoking as difficult as possible.” Especially given that my father has COPD and fights for every breath, likely due to his (now ex-) smoking habit. But I am wary that my personal bias on this matter makes me too likely to thoughtlessly lean towards a limitation on personal freedom.
Now, if only pot and booze were held to the same standards as cigarettes…
Woman charged with homicide after giving birth to stillborn baby
Also, a related discussion of Canadian Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Bill, at unrepentant old hippie’s blog:
One person, one body, one count.
**
And totally unrelated, this memorial of my friend’s son’s, murdered by law enforcement–on the 10th anniversary of his death:
Chinue Tao Hashim 1977-1998
And Robert, it should be perfectly obvious to you that your freedom to smoke ends at the tip of my pulmonary system.
Your right to work ends where you make not want to come to the place where you’re employed and give it money.
This is a giftie for FA folks: I build a search engine for plus size clothing hunts:
My bad. You can find it here.
Otherwise, I’m controversied out this week.
RonF – the problem with all these arguments is that our legal system is horribly messed up when it comes to drugs. Tobacco? More harmful than cannabis, far more harmful than LSD or ecstasy, and legal. Legal, but in many cases more restricted than alcohol, which is more dangerous yet. See this news piece and accompanying drug harm graph, which I ranted about on my blog here.
Kevin, I wasn’t aware Jeff Bridges was such a substantial voting block.
Should be an easy vote to sway. promises of a new rug would do it.
I’d vote for Jeff Bridges. He was great in Tron. :-)
On an earlier thread, Robert posted a link to a Drudge story claiming Clinton campaign folks had circulated a photo of Obama wearing African clothing that right-wing bloggers have been crowing about.
It turns out that the Clinton campaign denies the story, and Drudge has not, that I know of, produced even a crumb of evidence to back up his story. Draw your own conclusions.
Hi, delurking here. Since we’re encouraged to self-link, I thought I’d pimp my own blog, When Pianos Try to Be Sitars at sajia.livejournal.com (am lousy at html). I’m a musician and fantasy writer who blogs about feminism, Islam and occasionally music; I just posted my first complete full-length story. See y’all.
Amp, you had mentioned to me that the Drudge Report is one of the most important right-wing blogs out there. I’ve taken a look at it the last couple of days now and what it looks like to me is a disorganized mish-mash of stories that seem almost randomly selected and a huge collection of links to just about every major paper and columnist in the country. I can’t detect any particular political agenda at all.
Now, perhaps two days isn’t long enough a time to judge. But other right-wing blogs that I’ve looked at don’t leave much to the imagination as far as where their viewpoint lies. What am I missing here?
Oh, of course, new jobs. Why didn’t I think of that? I’ll just let all of those women serving your food and alcohol know that if they don’t weant to die of lung cancer, all they have to do is find a restaurant that doesn’t allow smoking and get a job there. Easy peasy.
I don’t usually resort to sarcasm, but this drives me crazy. I’m not sure when we decided that men working in coal mines deserve protection for their lives but women in waitressing jobs don’t. A carpenter putting a nail through their shoe had it in their power to NOT put the nail through their shoe – a waitress subjected to secondhand smoke eight to twelve hours a day has no such ability. There is nothing the waitress can do to prevent herself from being exposed to a deadly chemical in the confines of a restaurant or bar. We would never allow a factory to operate that blew smoke through its production floor filled with toxic chemicals every day – the fact that this smoke is produced by people enjoying their smoke (through a filter) doesn’t change the fact that it is wrong to subject workers to such obvious and deadly dangers.
I understand the “nanny state” issues, but I really don’t see that here. All I see are a lot of poor women who have the choice to either endanger their lives or quit their jobs, and I don’t really see that as much of a choice.
The denial you link to is masterly; “No, not to my knowledge…I’ve never seen that picture before. I’m not aware that anyone else here has. I’m not aware that anyone here has circulated this e-mail.”
Not “it isn’t true”. “I am not aware.” Yeesh.
The Clinton campaign – or perhaps I should say the Clinton camp – has a multi-decade history of denying things that Drudge has reported, Amp. Assess the record for yourself and draw your own conclusions, indeed.
ADS –
actually, here in Madison, most places are 50/50 male/female split when it comes to servers. And all restaurants were non-smoking: it was bars and taverns that were excluded. SO, yeah, I think it was completely reasonable to expect people who wanted to work in a non-smoking environment to choose to do just that. There used to be no shortage of jobs, so that was a choice that could easily be made. NOW, however, there are a lot of out of work servers, or those making less money. So like i said, the next time you want to pass regulations that are supposedly in my own best interest, maybe you should actually ask me what that would be.
Can you agree, alie, that if ALL restaurants and taverns were non-smoking, that that would be more in your best interests than if some or none of them were?
Robert, how can she state definitively that no one on her campaign staff has ever seen that picture before? She can certainly ask them, but is she supposed to be a mindreader to know of they’re lying or not? She stated definitively that she’d never seen the picture, and that she herself had nothing to do with it, and that she did not sanction the distribution of it, and that she’ll fire anyone on her staff if she finds that anyone DID have something to do with it. What more, exactly, would you like her to say?
ADS, she can say “Nobody on my staff sent this picture out, and Drudge is lying. I will sue his ass for defamation if he can’t prove it.”
Instead, she said “I am not aware of…”
Come on. You have a brain. “I am not aware of…” is transparent code for “this probably did happen, we’re embarrassed about it, and we hope folks will drop it.”
Based on what’s happening in Illinois? Not really. There, where the entire state has gone non-smoking, all bar and restaurant business is down. The truth is, bar goers tend to be smokers. Non smokers go to bars much less frequently. But give it a few years.
The question is still comes back to one of a) who gets to decide what makes *me* better off, and b) for that matter, who gets to decide what activities are allowed for adults. I admit that smoking is a sticky one. But the smoking bans led within a year to trans-fat bans, and now, bans on overweight people eating in restaurants. I’m pretty damned sure, based on the strippers I know, that strip clubs are bad for the people who work there. But I’d consider it gross patronage for the city to try and ban them for the good of the strippers.
Based on what’s happening in Illinois? Not really. There, where the entire state has gone non-smoking, all bar and restaurant business is down. The truth is, bar goers tend to be smokers.
Do you have a cite for this? I ask because that statement is contrary to all evidence I’ve seen on the effects of smoking bans on bars & restaurants over the last 5 to 10 years.
Jake,
Chicago tavern owners claim business is down up to 30%: they also admit that this could be due to the absolutlely CRAP weather we’ve had here:
http://www.thehawkeye.com/Story/Smoking-ban-0224082-glance
Which is why I included the “give it a few years” comment.
I’m looking now at several studies from california: the problem is that I can’t find a study from a non-biased perspective. The smoking ban advocates all find that business isn’t down, or is down negligibly: those who are opposed say it’s down a lot. I found several articles wherein bar owners complained of massive drop offs in business in California, but they’re all dated to ’98.
AND ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT NOTE…
A friend of mine and I were talking yesterday about starting spontaneous guerilla theater here in Madison. I want to stage Romeo and Juliet as a real space piece down State Street. Capulets come from the capitol, Montegues from campus…
Restaurant attendance is down all over the country due to the economy; any study of behavior before and after the smoking ban should take that into account as well.
Restaurant owners in Santa Monica complained and complained before our indoor smoking ban went into effect. Usually it was predictions that patrons would leave the city or stay at home rather than go to their now non-smoking restaurants. I remember reading an article after the ban took effect where restaurant owners were pleasantly surprised: they reported that their clientele changed somewhat, but business levels were about the same.
Of course, that’s anecdotal, and old to boot.
It always depends on exactly what kind of business you are and where. The corner dive bars will always have a problem: they existed solely for people to drink and smoke as cheaply as possible. Nice places, places that are trendy, in neighborhoods where they’re to only pub, or are well situated will be impacted less. People who avoided the nice martini bar with the jazz because of the smoke may very well now decide to go once a week. People who object enough to secondhand smoke to not want to go to a smoking bar aren’t likely to dash, now, for the “5 bucks for a six pack o’ PBR” night.
I understand the “nanny state” issues, but I really don’t see that here. All I see are a lot of poor women who have the choice to either endanger their lives or quit their jobs, and I don’t really see that as much of a choice.
As a customer in an place that’s banned smoking in public establishments, I appreciate being able to walk in somewhere, NOT have to breath in this crap, NOT have the smell stick to my clothes (and leather jacket) and NOT have the smell linger in my hair. Before these laws were passed and I complained, I was told that I shouldn’t go to these places (all which allowed smoking). I resented the hell out of that. I mean, what? People who were sensitive to smoke, who maybe didn’t want to get their just dry-cleaned workclothes stunk up, who wanted to breath clean air, have no rights? It won’t kill people to smoke elsewhere.
Seriously? I shouldn’t have to suffer from someone else’s habit.
a photo of Obama wearing African clothing
Excuse the dumb question, but Clinton and Drudge aside, why is a photo of Obama wearing African clothing an issue? I haven’t seen the photo in question, but I think traditional African clothing would probably look good on Obama. And is there anyone out there who hasn’t been living under a rock or even who has, that doesn’t realize that some of Obama’s ancestors came to the Americas straight from Africa without a stopover in Europe?
Dianne: I don’t think it would be much of an issue were there not a persistent “Manchurian Muslim” whisper campaign against Obama, a tendency among ignorant people to treat all turban-esque forms of head dress as indicating “Muslim” (for example: after 9/11, an American Sikh was killed by an American idiot seeking vengeance), and according to Drudge, the photo was passed on in an email complaining that Clinton would have been criticized had she been similarly dressed in “Muslim” clothing. (Please note irony quotes.)
I don’t think Drudge is to be believed on his source, but I’ll credit him for including pictures of Clinton in a hijab and Bush in a jacket reflecting his host country’s tradition (which I forget what it’s called.)
But you’re right, it would be asinine to criticize Obama for honoring his Kenyan roots by donning traditional forms of dress. It’s like mocking someone of Scottish ancestry for wearing a kilt. But that didn’t stop Lou Dobbs from saying Obama looked ridiculous the other day. Good ole Lou. :-P
If my (rather extensive) experience is any guide, the corner dive bars won’t have a problem at all: patrons will continue to smoke regardless of whether or not it’s illegal. There are too many dive bars, and too few police officers, to achieve meaningful enforcement in neighborhood places where everybody knows everybody else. (Stepped-up enforcement coupled with significant penalties for the owners of the bars could change this, but I don’t really see that happening.)
Similar smoking laws were passed in my country. As a sensitive asthmatic with frequent breathing difficulty, I do appreciate being able to sit inside when it’s cold, even living in a city populated with tons of compulsive smokers. As a queer woman, I have to mourn the fact that the only lesbian bar in the country closed down a couple of months ago due to debt from smoking-related fines.
One of my best friends is a smoker, and she welcomes the law, because she’s very conscious of the idea that her habit is harmful to people’s environment. My neighbor and landlord, also a smoker, is staunchly opposed, for the usual reason of it interfering with his smoking/drinking evening enjoyment. My boss is in the process of quitting, and the smell of tobacco now makes him nauseous.
I know that I cannot say, “But I like to be able to breathe,” because it sounds demagogic. Most people don’t understand that I mean it literally, not as hyperbole.
In other news, since self-linking is encouraged, I don’t wonder why my country’s government has failed to acknowledge the Kosovar declaration of independence.
Actually, Robert, I translate “I am not aware of …” as “I don’t know, and I don’t want to know, I have no intention of trying to find out and nobody on my staff better try to look into this or tell me.” It’s called “plausible deniability”.
I’ve just seen a thread on Free Republic that has brought up someone who’s asserting that Sen. Obama has dual nationality – American and Kenyan – and that he’s never renounced his Kenyan nationality. I’d be interested to know just what the story is. Apparently it comes though his father, and both the U.S. and Kenya recognize dual nationality. It’s not being alleged that this is a legal obstacle to his eligibility for holding the Presidency. It does present the question of whether or not it’s a desirable thing that an American President be a dual national.
Meanwhile; Tony Rezko will be going to trial soon for extorting and collecting money from various businessmen, etc., to donate to political campaigns. The Governor of Illinois is one of those politicians. He denies knowing about it. Ex-Governor George Ryan took the same tack when confronted with this issue a couple of years ago. The denial turned out to be a lie. He’s now in the same jail that ex-Governor Walker served time in, and Walker made the rounds of the media assuring everyone that the place is no country club. Geez, I think half the people who have served as Governor since I’ve been living here have been indicted and jailed.
Should Tony Rezko get convicted (you can’t assume it, but I’d sure as hell bet on it), he’ll start rolling on the politicians he contributed money to. Those politicians would include Obama, who Rezko has been supporting ever since Obama started out in the Illinois State Senate. This could get real interesting.
Yes, Robert, I do have a brain – and my brain tells me that Hillary Clinton is not a mindreader. It also tells me that if she did say “No one on my staff sent that picture” and then it turned out that some seventeen-year-old in a campaign office in Cleveland DID indeed send that picture, you’d be all over her for being a liar. I think her statement that she will fire anyone on her staff who was involved in it, if there is such a person, was a pretty powerful condemnation. And if Drudge has proof, where is it?
And if Drudge has proof, where is it?
Presumably he is protecting his source’s job.
I think her statement that she will fire anyone on her staff who was involved in it, if there is such a person, was a pretty powerful condemnation.
It is also incompatible with the denial. It’s called arguing in the alternative; “We didn’t do this. If we did do this, we’ll fire whoever did it. But we didn’t do it.”
And again with the “not a mindreader.” She can’t state definitively that no one on her staff did it, because SHE HAS NO ABILITY TO READ HER STAFF’S MINDS. She CAN say definitively that she had nothing to do with it, and that if she does find that someone on her staff did do it, she will fire them, but people who work for politicians do sometimes do things on their own. Again, I’m not sure what it is you would want her to say. “I can say for a fact that no one on my campaign staff sent this picture to Drudge?” How can anyone human being state for a fact that someone else didn’t do something, unless they’re physically in their presence 24 hours a day?
Vice President Dick Cheney is missing an entire week of email from 2003 which became known when a grand jury issued a subpoena. Apparently, there are problems with the email system.
Probably the same department that was in charge of Nixon’s tape recorder.
To return to the question of why pressing Obama on the Farrakhan endorsement is racist and stupid, read Glenn Greenwald’s excellent post on the subject. Here’s a snippet:
If that’s aimed at me (unclear whether your ‘racist and stupid” gun in pointed) you should know that I detest those people, too! Religion sucks equally.
But in terms of the analysis, I wonder if (sadly) this is correct:
Actually, I think the reason that white evangelical nutsos are granted respect is because their views are hateful, but (as per the rest of the country) thy are unfortunately NOT particularly radical, or extreme.
No, I don’t think you’re racist or stupid, the gun is aimed at the Russert-type journalists and Hannity-style public intellectuals (cough) who make an issue of it. It’s a squirt gun, too, so I’m not sure how much damage it will do. :-)
I’d say the Hagee minister-in-question holds views that most Americans, for all of our faults, would consider pretty extreme, no matter how many Left Behind books are sold. To Obama’s credit, he’s been on record denouncing Farrakhan’s anti-semitism, even before he was questioned on it. Shouldn’t we expect the same from McCain regarding Hagee’s homophobia? Since McCain is openly embracing this guy, he should be made to clarify whether or not he buys into the End Times justification for war with Iran, or the Divine Punishment via hurricane dealt upon New Orleans for allowing a Gay Pride parade.
I can understand asking Obama about it – once! But after he’s pooh-poohed Farrakhan, pressing him on it raises questions about the motives of the journalist. If McCain had responded to the Hagee endorsement with the same level of dismissal Obama treated Farrakhan, then by all means, leave him alone. But he welcomed the endorsement, so follow up questions are reasonable – indeed, required.
This is interesting:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/more/02/27/sabbath.colorado.ap/index.html?cnn=yes
Strange how no accommodation can be made for a non-Christian religion so often. Please tell me again how Christians are under assault in this country.
But, of course, we know that this is caused only by individuals and there is no such thing as systemic discrimination.
We also know that there is no more anti-semitism in the US. All Jews can feel safe in all aspects of their lives in the US.
As I’ve been told, in both cases, in comments here.
Hm. I’ve seen dribs and drabs of this Farahkhan/Obama story. If Obama is being asked to publicly reject Farahkhan purely on the basis that both are black and high-profile, it’s bogus and may well be racist. OTOH, if Farahkhan publicly pledged his support for Obama, it’s entirely reasonable to ask Obama if he accepts such support (given Farrahkhan’s high profile and whacknut views). And, yes, if some high-profile minister who, say, wants to hunt down and shoot abortion providers (hyperbole!) or has some other extremist views pledges his eternal fealty to McCain’s campaign, it would be quite reasonable to ask McCain the same question.
Jake, you know how I’d like to see that issue resolved?
Let the Hebrew team win out to the point of the Sabbath game. Then let their opponent also not show for the game out of respect for their opponents’ religious practices. Maybe the coaches of or someone in the administration of the other schools will show some character, and some willingness to teach their children (and their parents in some cases, I fear) what true sportsmanship means.
To your point; one example to the contrary does not prove that Christianity is not under fire in this country. I don’t hold that it is; I simply hold that your logic is deficient.
Me – when people tell me “Happy Holidays”, I say “Merry Christmas” back to them and consider the matter closed.
Yes. A single example. Nobody has shown you any other examples on this blog. You are correct, sir.
I’ve been blogging on the trial of the NYPD detectives who shot and killed Sean Bell. Some interesting testimony emerging there especially by the supervising lieutenant. And blogging on a local fatal shooting by officers but just got started there.
I’m also researching the situation in Portland, Oregon with what’s been going on since Eileen Luna-Firebaugh released her report on the Independent Police Review. Portland’s city politics seem very interesting. I’m contrasting it with a similar situation in my city which also had a report released on its civilian oversight mechanism. So I’ll be blogging on how they compare and contrast, which I’ve done a bit earlier already. It’s very interesting.
Ok, everybody stay calm. There’s no reason to panic.
You know what we’ve come for. So just hand over the photos of Sydney and Maddox. That’s all. Nice and easy, see?
Hm? Don’t insult my intelligence.
Oh, very well; I’m a reasonable man. We’ll give you ’til next Monday. But don’t try my patience, or else I’ll have to, to, OH, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, have some compassion, will you? Mondays are tough enough already. And by next Monday I’ll have burned through all my Girl Scout cookies. A moment’s respite, that ‘s all I ask! Surely Maddox has had some heartwarming, photogentic encounter with a kitten or goldfish or someother damn thing, while Sydney beamed beatifically, right? So, didja forget to recharge the camera batteries? Or does cuteness consume extra bandwidth? Or what?
I mean, WHAT?!?