It is a good question for we do live in crazy times that an NBA player decides to tell the world he is a homosexual and a man on trial for his life for botching an abortion and the discovery of his House of Horrors juxtaposes on same day.
So people, who gets more ink? Or coverage in the so-called Mainstream Media?
Why once again, it is the dude that tells the world he is a homosexual.
Yes, according to the Mainstream Media, it is important, so earth-shattering news that a nearly washed up NBA player by the name of Jason Collins has an interview with Sports Illustrated in which he discloses that he is a gay man.
And for Jason, he is a twofer.
A BLACK, gay man that happens to play in the National Basketball Association.
This is suppose to be a first for he is the first current pro-player to say yup, I likes the guys and not the gals to have relations with.
Not only is it a revelation, but my local fish wrap, the Pasadena Star-News editorializes that this is so huge, why it compares to Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier in pro sports in 1947 as the first Black player in major league baseball. Of course with the Brooklyn Dodgers.
Well, back to that hyperbole later.
I eagerly look for coverage of the Kermit Gosnell trial taking place in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in the same fish wrap.
Wait, who is this Kermit Gosnell anyhow?!
Well, it is suppose to be Dr. Gosnell, but what he did, I can not call him a doctor.
"Dr." Gosnell has spent the last 40 years as, to put it kindly, an abortion provider.
A butcher that preys on the young, poor and most vulnerable women is what this cretin really is.
The reason that "Dr." Gosnell is on trial is he was charged for third-degree murder in the death of one of his "patients", one Karnamaya Mongar. It appears that "Dr." Gosnell, well he just stuffed her with a lethal combo of anesthesia and painkillers. And the only reason this was discovered because this wonderful man of the community, while he was being investigated for illegal prescription drug use at his vaunted Women's Medical Society in Philadelphia.
The worst aspect of this abortionist is that he had absolutely no problem killing nearly full born babies. This "Dr." Gosnell, he was a specialist in late-term abortions. And hey, if the baby did not die this the body of a woman, well hell, just let him or her come out and a little snip to the back of the neck and voila! Problem solved. A dead baby.
Now before one thinks that this is some great man that justs brings a health service to vulnerable women, consider that this dude has had a rap sheet going back to 1989. This is not "Dr." Gosnell's first trip around the legal block.
There is a lot more.
But there is also another aspect to this case.
It is the lack of Mainstream Media coverage. It is also addressed in the Wikipedia piece. Why even a Washington Post reporter, Melissa Henneberger, wrote about the lack coverage that is in retrospect a bad thing. Because the Post in particular thought that it was little more than a local crime story in Philadelphia. Miss Henneberger said that one colleague thought that it was too lurid a story.
Too lurid a story?! Really?!
Even Miss Henneberger could not believe that "logic".
The real reason is that this is a such a case that it very well can and will make people think twice about the role of abortion in the United States today. And the abortuary industrial complex, with its tentacles deep inside the Mainstream Media can not let that happen. They will do all in their power to try to keep coverage of this trial at a minimum. And up to now, they have somewhat suceeded.
But those dastardly internets and that pesky Fox News Channel and some local coverage has elevated this case to a rightful national level.
But the Mainstream Media thinks that the more important story is an NBA player in the waning days of his career "coming out" as a gay man.
Well, to be honest, this is not the big deal athlete I would think want to be the first. In fact, Mr. Collins is currently not under a contract and is a free agent.
But to see the coverage of this over "Dr." Gosnell is a case of our priorities are really screwed up.
Somehow, Mr. Collins is elevated to hero status because as I noted, he admits that he likes guys, not gals.
And the comparison to Jackie Robinson is beyond insulting.
Here is the difference.
Mr. Robinson would have been regulated to playing baseball in separate, all-Black leagues known as the Negro Leagues. Had it not been for the vision of Branch Rickey. And while Mr. Robinson was working his way up to the Dodgers, he played in the South where the California-born Robinson was exposed to Jim Crow at its worse. How about not being able to go to the men's room? Oh he could, as long as he went to the Colored men's room. Lunch counters, the same. Drinking fountains, the same. Even seating at ballparks, the same petty humiliation because he was a Black man.
Does Mr. Collins or has he faced anything near that? Even being in the closet, so to speak? Sure, he heard more than his fair share faggots, queer, and other anti-gay epitaphs. But he could do all the things he wanted that but a few generations ago, Jackie Robinson fought for his right to be able to do.
Including being able to be a gay man.
And I'll go this far.
I don't care. I really don't care if Mr. Collins, hell the whole Washington Wizards team is gay. As long as the other players are down with it. For you see, pro sports has the right to do what it wants. I believe that no one should get in the way of what they choose to do. So long as the ramifications are to be understood by all concerned.
But really, what is going to affect the greater number of members of society?
Whether a pro athlete is gay or whether a butcher killing innocent babies will pay a price for his barbarity?
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Why Does ANYONE Care About The White House Correspondents Dinner?
I know you are thinking that if I don't care about the dreaded White House Correspondents Dinner, why write about it?
Well, it is kind of a morbid fascination as to why anyone gives a flying pig about a bunch of "journalists" and their guests listening to the President of the United States, no matter who he or she maybe, prattle on some supposed unrehearsed zingers at the same press corps giving themselves some big party.
Today it is nothing more than Hollywood in Washington.
All these Hollyweird celebutards, invited by jealous folks that they do not have the same appeal as do the people they invited. I mean really, is there any reason on God's green earth that Lindsey Lowlife should be anywhere near this event?
Yet Fox News Channels' Greta Van Sustren invited Miss Lowlife to last year's bash. And it so offended one Tom Brokaw so much he vowed never to attend another.
Awww, so sad that Bolshevik Brokaw did not want to come to this year's bash.
Look, I do not blame Lindsey Lowlife for showing up. Any publicity is good, especially for her, right?
But here is the problem I have with this and all types of shows that elevate self-worth.
In this case, it sends a bad message that the press and the administration in power in Washington are too chummy.
Because even when George W. Bush was president, even Ronald Reagan, even Richard Nixon, there has always been favorable media and or reporters.
But to be this open about it? To suck up to each other like the worst porno movie you can imagine?
The Washington press corps, no especially the White House press corps needs not only to be adversarial, but distant as possible no matter who occupies the White House.
Having what has become a Hollyweird production of a dinner is just too much.
But it dovetails on the whole awards-show concept that is disturbing.
From the Academy Awards down to the high school sports banquets, it is nothing more than self-love.
Oh, look at us actors! We are just so fricking wonderful! We spend an evening in clothes we only rent once a year pretending to be rooting for anyone but themselves to win an award that they want for themselves.
It is totally phony.
Just as is the WHCD.
Phony.
And yet there are all these celebrity hanger-ons and politicians, a dangerous combo if there ever was one, and even the president there, yukking it up. Why they even have some awards they hand out at this event as well.
Most people are really not into this dripping celebutard-politard worship. We really are not. It is one of those things that unifies Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, and everyone else in between.
Yet this shameful event gets bigger and bigger every single year.
And yet, I do not care. Most of us do not care.
I end with this question.
When will others follow Tom Brokaw and never show up again?
Well, it is kind of a morbid fascination as to why anyone gives a flying pig about a bunch of "journalists" and their guests listening to the President of the United States, no matter who he or she maybe, prattle on some supposed unrehearsed zingers at the same press corps giving themselves some big party.
Today it is nothing more than Hollywood in Washington.
All these Hollyweird celebutards, invited by jealous folks that they do not have the same appeal as do the people they invited. I mean really, is there any reason on God's green earth that Lindsey Lowlife should be anywhere near this event?
Yet Fox News Channels' Greta Van Sustren invited Miss Lowlife to last year's bash. And it so offended one Tom Brokaw so much he vowed never to attend another.
Awww, so sad that Bolshevik Brokaw did not want to come to this year's bash.
Look, I do not blame Lindsey Lowlife for showing up. Any publicity is good, especially for her, right?
But here is the problem I have with this and all types of shows that elevate self-worth.
In this case, it sends a bad message that the press and the administration in power in Washington are too chummy.
Because even when George W. Bush was president, even Ronald Reagan, even Richard Nixon, there has always been favorable media and or reporters.
But to be this open about it? To suck up to each other like the worst porno movie you can imagine?
The Washington press corps, no especially the White House press corps needs not only to be adversarial, but distant as possible no matter who occupies the White House.
Having what has become a Hollyweird production of a dinner is just too much.
But it dovetails on the whole awards-show concept that is disturbing.
From the Academy Awards down to the high school sports banquets, it is nothing more than self-love.
Oh, look at us actors! We are just so fricking wonderful! We spend an evening in clothes we only rent once a year pretending to be rooting for anyone but themselves to win an award that they want for themselves.
It is totally phony.
Just as is the WHCD.
Phony.
And yet there are all these celebrity hanger-ons and politicians, a dangerous combo if there ever was one, and even the president there, yukking it up. Why they even have some awards they hand out at this event as well.
Most people are really not into this dripping celebutard-politard worship. We really are not. It is one of those things that unifies Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, and everyone else in between.
Yet this shameful event gets bigger and bigger every single year.
And yet, I do not care. Most of us do not care.
I end with this question.
When will others follow Tom Brokaw and never show up again?
Friday, April 26, 2013
Rebecca Martinson Sorority Queen Of The Year
Well, here is something to confess straight up.
Mrs. RVFTLC is a sorority gal.
Her soroity is Delta Gamma.
I don't really want to confirm that with her for I think she will be shocked that I writing about a sorority gal.
This particular one from her sorority.
But not just any sorority gal. No, no, no. This is in my estimation the queen of the sorority gals.
Her name is Rebecca Martinson and she is one tough gal.
And sad to say, she won't be the queen of her sorority since she has "resigned" her membership.
Now you may ask, why? Why did Miss Martinson have to resign as a member of said Delta Gamma?
Well, for this awesome, epic, beyond profanity-laced e-mail about, well how she thinks Delta Gamma sucks to cut to the chase.
WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!
If you can't hack profanity, stop reading and wait for the next post.
Now you have been warned, here is the greatest ranting e-mail evah:
If you just opened this like I told you to, tie yourself down to whatever chair you're sitting in, because this email is going to be a rough fucking ride.
For those of you that have your heads stuck under rocks, which apparently is the majority of this chapter, we have been FUCKING UP in terms of night time events and general social interactions with Sigma Nu. I've been getting texts on texts about people LITERALLY being so fucking AWKWARD and so fucking BORING. If you're reading this right now and saying to yourself "But oh em gee Julia, I've been having so much fun with my sisters this week!", then punch yourself in the face right now so that I don't have to fucking find you on campus to do it myself.
I do not give a flying fuck, and Sigma Nu does not give a flying fuck, about how much you fucking love to talk to your sisters. You have 361 days out of the fucking year to talk to sisters, and this week is NOT, I fucking repeat NOT ONE OF THEM. This week is about fostering relationships in the greek community, and that's not fucking possible if you're going to stand around and talk to each other and not our matchup. Newsflash you stupid cocks: FRATS DON'T LIKE BORING SORORITIES. Oh wait, DOUBLE FUCKING NEWSFLASH: SIGMA NU IS NOT GOING TO WANT TO HANG OUT WITH US IF WE FUCKING SUCK, which by the way in case you're an idiot and need it spelled out for you, WE FUCKING SUCK SO FAR. This also applies to you little shits that have talked openly about post gaming at a different frat IN FRONT OF SIGMA NU BROTHERS. Are you people fucking retarded? That's not a rhetorical question, I LITERALLY want you to email me back telling me if you're mentally slow so I can make sure you don't go to anymore night time events. If Sigma Nu openly said "Yeah we're gonna invite Zeta over", would you be happy? WOULD YOU? No you wouldn't, so WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU DO IT TO THEM?? IN FRONT OF THEM?!! First of all, you SHOULDN'T be post gaming at other frats, I don't give a FUCK if your boyfriend is in it, if your brother is in it, or if your entire family is in that frat. YOU DON'T GO. YOU. DON'T. GO. And you ESPECIALLY do fucking NOT convince other girls to leave with you.
"But Julia!", you say in a whiny little bitch voice to your computer screen as you read this email, "I've been cheering on our teams at all the sports, doesn't that count for something?" NO YOU STUPID FUCKING ASS HATS, IT FUCKING DOESN'T. DO YOU WANNA KNOW FUCKING WHY?!! IT DOESN'T COUNT BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN FUCKING UP AT SOBER FUCKING EVENTS TOO. I've not only gotten texts about people being fucking WEIRD at sports (for example, being stupid shits and saying stuff like "durr what's kickball?" is not fucking funny), but I've gotten texts about people actually cheering for the opposing team. The opposing. Fucking. Team. ARE YOU FUCKING STUPID?!! I don't give a SHIT about sportsmanship, YOU CHEER FOR OUR GODDAMN TEAM AND NOT THE OTHER ONE, HAVE YOU NEVER BEEN TO A SPORTS GAME? ARE YOU FUCKING BLIND? Or are you just so fucking dense about what it means to make people like you that you think being a good little supporter of the greek community is going to make our matchup happy? Well it's time someone told you, NO ONE FUCKING LIKES THAT, ESPECIALLY OUR FUCKING MATCHUP. I will fucking cunt punt the next person I hear about doing something like that, and I don't give a fuck if you SOR me, I WILL FUCKING ASSAULT YOU.
"Ohhh Julia, I'm now crying because your email has made me oh so so sad". Well good. If this email applies to you in any way, meaning if you are a little asswipe that stands in the corners at night or if you're a weird shit that does weird shit during the day, this following message is for you:
DO NOT GO TO TONIGHT'S EVENT.
I'm not fucking kidding. Don't go. Seriously, if you have done ANYTHING I've mentioned in this email and have some rare disease where you're unable to NOT do these things, then you are HORRIBLE, I repeat, HORRIBLE PR FOR THIS CHAPTER. I would rather have 40 girls that are fun, talk to boys, and not fucking awkward than 80 that are fucking faggots. If you are one of the people that have told me "Oh nooo boo hoo I can't talk to boys I'm too sober", then I pity you because I don't know how you got this far in life, and with that in mind don't fucking show up unless you're going to stop being a goddamn cock block for our chapter. Seriously. I swear to fucking God if I see anyone being a goddamn boner at tonight's event, I will tell you to leave even if you're sober. I'm not even kidding. Try me.
WOW!
Unbelievable.
If I counted right, there were 35 variations of the f-word in this rant.
And really, was Miss Martinson in charge of morale? I mean, what loser would not be pumped up after reading this?
Oh, and here is the best term I read here:
Cunt punt
Yikes! That just sounds as horrible as it can get.
For one, I do not get what got her bonnet in a bunch that she felt like writing such an e-mail and hit the 'send' button. Really, did Miss Martinson not think that someone would NOT find it, I don't know, beyond mild corrective criticism? I mean, threatening a nice cunt punt why wouldn't that make a gal realize, hey, I have to stop being such a loser?
As a rant, yeah its hilarious.
But, what it shows about Miss Martinson is a lack of restraint.
And apparently, it is not exactly the first time Miss Martinson has had colorful communication with others via e-mails and or the internets.
Let me assure you that Mrs. RVFTLC is NOTHING like this gal. Nor her friends that are also alumnae of this sorority. They are exactly what the DGs, as they call themselves, strive for:
Foster(ing) high ideals of friendship among college women, to promote their educational and cultural interests, to create in them a true sense of social responsibility and to develop in them the best qualities of character.
But back to Miss Martinson.
In a weird way, I do like her spunk. She wants to live the sorority experience all the way.
But again, this is not exactly the way to promote friendship among college women.
What people do not realize is that an e-mail, well you don't need the federal government to surveil it to make it public. In this case all it takes is a "loser" DG to read the above rant to not take it anymore.
What it shows is that lack of restraint is epidemic in our society today.
What it shows is that a gal today can swear so much and so publicly that the drunken sailor passed out at, you guessed it.
Cunt Punt.
Once this went viral, the frat and sorority haters had an orgasm, I am sure.
Look at this spoiled brat and all that she cares about. Blah, blah, blah.
Let me tell you about my sorority gal, Mrs. RVFTLC.
She has lived the values of the DGs and continues to do so.
When I met her 18 years ago, she was not just an active parent but working as a volunteer to get a high school in our then hometown, San Gabriel, built. While the school was being built as her son, my stepson, was on the swim team and she was swim team booster raising money every which way she could. She was a community volunteer. Today, she is a member of our church board, the vestry.
Mrs. RVFTLC would never go off like the Martinson gal.
Yes, sorority gals and frat boys like to party. So what? In and of itself, it is all part of the college experience for many. Of course when it starts to effect one studies, a different story. But what strikes me about Miss Martinson if, as I get it, her sister DGs were just not living the Greek life the way she thinks it should be. And what I would like to ask her is does she care about the values DG seeks to instill in young "ladies" like her.
Before you Greek haters get all excited with your hate and envy, Miss Martinson does not reflect sorority gals by and large. She is an aberration.
But one thing is for sure.
She may have a career in writing. At least epic rants. And that makes her my sorority queen of the year!
Mrs. RVFTLC is a sorority gal.
Her soroity is Delta Gamma.
I don't really want to confirm that with her for I think she will be shocked that I writing about a sorority gal.
This particular one from her sorority.
But not just any sorority gal. No, no, no. This is in my estimation the queen of the sorority gals.
Her name is Rebecca Martinson and she is one tough gal.
And sad to say, she won't be the queen of her sorority since she has "resigned" her membership.
Now you may ask, why? Why did Miss Martinson have to resign as a member of said Delta Gamma?
Well, for this awesome, epic, beyond profanity-laced e-mail about, well how she thinks Delta Gamma sucks to cut to the chase.
WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!
If you can't hack profanity, stop reading and wait for the next post.
Now you have been warned, here is the greatest ranting e-mail evah:
If you just opened this like I told you to, tie yourself down to whatever chair you're sitting in, because this email is going to be a rough fucking ride.
For those of you that have your heads stuck under rocks, which apparently is the majority of this chapter, we have been FUCKING UP in terms of night time events and general social interactions with Sigma Nu. I've been getting texts on texts about people LITERALLY being so fucking AWKWARD and so fucking BORING. If you're reading this right now and saying to yourself "But oh em gee Julia, I've been having so much fun with my sisters this week!", then punch yourself in the face right now so that I don't have to fucking find you on campus to do it myself.
I do not give a flying fuck, and Sigma Nu does not give a flying fuck, about how much you fucking love to talk to your sisters. You have 361 days out of the fucking year to talk to sisters, and this week is NOT, I fucking repeat NOT ONE OF THEM. This week is about fostering relationships in the greek community, and that's not fucking possible if you're going to stand around and talk to each other and not our matchup. Newsflash you stupid cocks: FRATS DON'T LIKE BORING SORORITIES. Oh wait, DOUBLE FUCKING NEWSFLASH: SIGMA NU IS NOT GOING TO WANT TO HANG OUT WITH US IF WE FUCKING SUCK, which by the way in case you're an idiot and need it spelled out for you, WE FUCKING SUCK SO FAR. This also applies to you little shits that have talked openly about post gaming at a different frat IN FRONT OF SIGMA NU BROTHERS. Are you people fucking retarded? That's not a rhetorical question, I LITERALLY want you to email me back telling me if you're mentally slow so I can make sure you don't go to anymore night time events. If Sigma Nu openly said "Yeah we're gonna invite Zeta over", would you be happy? WOULD YOU? No you wouldn't, so WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU DO IT TO THEM?? IN FRONT OF THEM?!! First of all, you SHOULDN'T be post gaming at other frats, I don't give a FUCK if your boyfriend is in it, if your brother is in it, or if your entire family is in that frat. YOU DON'T GO. YOU. DON'T. GO. And you ESPECIALLY do fucking NOT convince other girls to leave with you.
"But Julia!", you say in a whiny little bitch voice to your computer screen as you read this email, "I've been cheering on our teams at all the sports, doesn't that count for something?" NO YOU STUPID FUCKING ASS HATS, IT FUCKING DOESN'T. DO YOU WANNA KNOW FUCKING WHY?!! IT DOESN'T COUNT BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN FUCKING UP AT SOBER FUCKING EVENTS TOO. I've not only gotten texts about people being fucking WEIRD at sports (for example, being stupid shits and saying stuff like "durr what's kickball?" is not fucking funny), but I've gotten texts about people actually cheering for the opposing team. The opposing. Fucking. Team. ARE YOU FUCKING STUPID?!! I don't give a SHIT about sportsmanship, YOU CHEER FOR OUR GODDAMN TEAM AND NOT THE OTHER ONE, HAVE YOU NEVER BEEN TO A SPORTS GAME? ARE YOU FUCKING BLIND? Or are you just so fucking dense about what it means to make people like you that you think being a good little supporter of the greek community is going to make our matchup happy? Well it's time someone told you, NO ONE FUCKING LIKES THAT, ESPECIALLY OUR FUCKING MATCHUP. I will fucking cunt punt the next person I hear about doing something like that, and I don't give a fuck if you SOR me, I WILL FUCKING ASSAULT YOU.
"Ohhh Julia, I'm now crying because your email has made me oh so so sad". Well good. If this email applies to you in any way, meaning if you are a little asswipe that stands in the corners at night or if you're a weird shit that does weird shit during the day, this following message is for you:
DO NOT GO TO TONIGHT'S EVENT.
I'm not fucking kidding. Don't go. Seriously, if you have done ANYTHING I've mentioned in this email and have some rare disease where you're unable to NOT do these things, then you are HORRIBLE, I repeat, HORRIBLE PR FOR THIS CHAPTER. I would rather have 40 girls that are fun, talk to boys, and not fucking awkward than 80 that are fucking faggots. If you are one of the people that have told me "Oh nooo boo hoo I can't talk to boys I'm too sober", then I pity you because I don't know how you got this far in life, and with that in mind don't fucking show up unless you're going to stop being a goddamn cock block for our chapter. Seriously. I swear to fucking God if I see anyone being a goddamn boner at tonight's event, I will tell you to leave even if you're sober. I'm not even kidding. Try me.
WOW!
Unbelievable.
If I counted right, there were 35 variations of the f-word in this rant.
And really, was Miss Martinson in charge of morale? I mean, what loser would not be pumped up after reading this?
Oh, and here is the best term I read here:
Cunt punt
Yikes! That just sounds as horrible as it can get.
For one, I do not get what got her bonnet in a bunch that she felt like writing such an e-mail and hit the 'send' button. Really, did Miss Martinson not think that someone would NOT find it, I don't know, beyond mild corrective criticism? I mean, threatening a nice cunt punt why wouldn't that make a gal realize, hey, I have to stop being such a loser?
As a rant, yeah its hilarious.
But, what it shows about Miss Martinson is a lack of restraint.
And apparently, it is not exactly the first time Miss Martinson has had colorful communication with others via e-mails and or the internets.
Let me assure you that Mrs. RVFTLC is NOTHING like this gal. Nor her friends that are also alumnae of this sorority. They are exactly what the DGs, as they call themselves, strive for:
Foster(ing) high ideals of friendship among college women, to promote their educational and cultural interests, to create in them a true sense of social responsibility and to develop in them the best qualities of character.
But back to Miss Martinson.
In a weird way, I do like her spunk. She wants to live the sorority experience all the way.
But again, this is not exactly the way to promote friendship among college women.
What people do not realize is that an e-mail, well you don't need the federal government to surveil it to make it public. In this case all it takes is a "loser" DG to read the above rant to not take it anymore.
What it shows is that lack of restraint is epidemic in our society today.
What it shows is that a gal today can swear so much and so publicly that the drunken sailor passed out at, you guessed it.
Cunt Punt.
Once this went viral, the frat and sorority haters had an orgasm, I am sure.
Look at this spoiled brat and all that she cares about. Blah, blah, blah.
Let me tell you about my sorority gal, Mrs. RVFTLC.
She has lived the values of the DGs and continues to do so.
When I met her 18 years ago, she was not just an active parent but working as a volunteer to get a high school in our then hometown, San Gabriel, built. While the school was being built as her son, my stepson, was on the swim team and she was swim team booster raising money every which way she could. She was a community volunteer. Today, she is a member of our church board, the vestry.
Mrs. RVFTLC would never go off like the Martinson gal.
Yes, sorority gals and frat boys like to party. So what? In and of itself, it is all part of the college experience for many. Of course when it starts to effect one studies, a different story. But what strikes me about Miss Martinson if, as I get it, her sister DGs were just not living the Greek life the way she thinks it should be. And what I would like to ask her is does she care about the values DG seeks to instill in young "ladies" like her.
Before you Greek haters get all excited with your hate and envy, Miss Martinson does not reflect sorority gals by and large. She is an aberration.
But one thing is for sure.
She may have a career in writing. At least epic rants. And that makes her my sorority queen of the year!
Thursday, April 25, 2013
An Interesting Take On The Liberal Bias Of Big-City Newspapers
Or the sub-head can read:
A cover for the the Leftywhore stranglehold on big-city propaganda rags.
OK, I guess that could be a little harsh for this article in The Atlantic magazine by Garance Franke-Ruta actually has some points that are worth an examination at the least and rebuttal when necessary.
I think that the thrust is that like attracts like. And since big-cities tend to be the last bastions of liberalism in the United States, liberal people will work for newspapers that reflect the liberalism of their city of choice.
Well, that would be true, I suppose, if newspapers were hermetically sealed and only read in say New York City proper. Or Washington, D. C. proper. Or Los Angeles. Well, you get the picture.
But newspapers in large cities not only serve their own big city but usually a region around it. Sometimes it is the one source for many in large swaths of some states.
Take where I live for example, Los Angeles.
Whilst I was growing up, this was a two-paper town. The behemoth Los Angeles Times and the scrappy Hearst-owned Los Angeles Herald-Examiner. When I was a tike, I can remember that the Herald as we called it had four editions a day. The Times two. But by 1980, both newspapers went down to one morning edition. Now the Herald was crippled by a strike that by 1989 killed it. But it was always beating the Times to big local stories, exposing corruption at the highest levels of local government. But the fact the the strike was solved was too late as the Times went from perceived right-wing rag to the "respectable" paper and just pretty much crushed the Herald. No amount of great reporting can save a newspaper if no one buys it, right?
Only now is Los Angeles a one and a half newspaper town again.
The Los Angeles Daily News essentially serves the interests of the San Fernando Valley. While it is sold and delivered city-wide, one can tell where its reporting is emphasized. And that is the San Fernando Valley. That is why it is a half rather than full rival of the Times.
OK, so in reading the article, it pretty much says that all cities are ran by Democrats and that suburbs are Democrats and by that alone, their is no market for Republican or conservative interests to be served by the newspapers in these cities.
Face in palm and head shaking.
If that was the case, the United States would be a one-party state ran by the Democrats.
Take suburbs.
They are totally less Democrat than the big cities. Some are Democrat, some are Republican and some are somewhere in the middle. And yes, it is true that immediate suburbs probably are more Democrat leaning, that is less the case the further one gets away from the big city.
When most American cities are down to one newspaper representing that city, it makes it more, not less, to be truly diverse and fearless in reporting.
Yet the opposite occurs.
They become more docile and choose to ignore issues that can be corruption or something that affects all, not just Ds or Rs. They often act as cheerleaders rather than watchdogs. And often are the last to know, so to speak, until the dreck hits the fan.
Anyhow, this part of the article is what gets my goat:
Because employment at these city-based newspapers is voluntary, they tend to attract reporters who want to live in cities. The New York Times, for example, gets the Iowans who want to leave Iowa and live in Manhattan or Brooklyn.
OK, yes that maybe true at a level. But a lot of people want to leave Iowa, work in big cities and are. . .conservative.
But, Mr. Franke-Ruta goes on:
Newspapers hire people who can deal with working in cities -- big, major, complicated, diverse, progressive cities -- and who will obey the socially progressive laws of those cities at work, even if they live off in the 'burbs somewhere.
So what does that mean? Only liberals need apply to newspapers in a big city? That discrimination against conservatives is OK in this area?
Once again, face in palm and head now violently shaking.
Is it really true that a good reporter who is conservative can't hack it in the big city? Is it really true that a conservative reporter that follows a story with no fear or favor can't be a conservative? In fact I will argue right here and now that is exactly what big city newsrooms need more than ever. It is more likely that they will not take corruption and bad governance at face value. It is more likely that the conservative writer or even worse in their eyes, editor, will be more than fair because of the fact they are the ones to point out the lack of balance in reporting, choice of stories, etc.
Honestly, this is the weakest case for bias I have seen.
In fact, it is why even the big city newspapers are beginning to see their comeuppance.
Most are losing readers at alarming rates. Most have not figured out to have a compelling, easy to navigate website that not only compliments the physical newspaper but makes the newspaper reader want to check out the website. The only reason people will do that is because many newspapers are making things only accessible online.
Instead of toeing the party line in said liberal big city, a good shake-up would be in order. Where all news is reported no matter what. Where political correctness sensibilities are thrown out the window. Where the liberal cocoon is busted wide open.
People will respect a newspaper that takes on sacred cows in the name of good reporting,
Seriously, it is what people are always looking for.
It is why alternative media, be it on the left or right is more widely read than a daily newspaper.
What Mr. Franke-Ruta is trying to do is essentially say hey, yeah the big city newspapers are propaganda sheets for the left, but it is only because only lefties live in big cities. And hey, if you are conservative, don't bother to even apply because you are probably from some part of the country that can't hack even being in a big city. Of course unless you can't wait to get the hell out of Deadwood, South Dakota and hate where you were brought up and want to stick it to the people you once thought were pretty OK, then apply.
It is this lefty cocoon thinking that will eventually be the death of the American newspaper. Unless people like Mr. Franke-Ruta wake up and kind of step out away from Manhattan and see the rest of the United States, maybe in 20 years or less there will not be a slew of newspapers around the way they are today.
A cover for the the Leftywhore stranglehold on big-city propaganda rags.
OK, I guess that could be a little harsh for this article in The Atlantic magazine by Garance Franke-Ruta actually has some points that are worth an examination at the least and rebuttal when necessary.
I think that the thrust is that like attracts like. And since big-cities tend to be the last bastions of liberalism in the United States, liberal people will work for newspapers that reflect the liberalism of their city of choice.
Well, that would be true, I suppose, if newspapers were hermetically sealed and only read in say New York City proper. Or Washington, D. C. proper. Or Los Angeles. Well, you get the picture.
But newspapers in large cities not only serve their own big city but usually a region around it. Sometimes it is the one source for many in large swaths of some states.
Take where I live for example, Los Angeles.
Whilst I was growing up, this was a two-paper town. The behemoth Los Angeles Times and the scrappy Hearst-owned Los Angeles Herald-Examiner. When I was a tike, I can remember that the Herald as we called it had four editions a day. The Times two. But by 1980, both newspapers went down to one morning edition. Now the Herald was crippled by a strike that by 1989 killed it. But it was always beating the Times to big local stories, exposing corruption at the highest levels of local government. But the fact the the strike was solved was too late as the Times went from perceived right-wing rag to the "respectable" paper and just pretty much crushed the Herald. No amount of great reporting can save a newspaper if no one buys it, right?
Only now is Los Angeles a one and a half newspaper town again.
The Los Angeles Daily News essentially serves the interests of the San Fernando Valley. While it is sold and delivered city-wide, one can tell where its reporting is emphasized. And that is the San Fernando Valley. That is why it is a half rather than full rival of the Times.
OK, so in reading the article, it pretty much says that all cities are ran by Democrats and that suburbs are Democrats and by that alone, their is no market for Republican or conservative interests to be served by the newspapers in these cities.
Face in palm and head shaking.
If that was the case, the United States would be a one-party state ran by the Democrats.
Take suburbs.
They are totally less Democrat than the big cities. Some are Democrat, some are Republican and some are somewhere in the middle. And yes, it is true that immediate suburbs probably are more Democrat leaning, that is less the case the further one gets away from the big city.
When most American cities are down to one newspaper representing that city, it makes it more, not less, to be truly diverse and fearless in reporting.
Yet the opposite occurs.
They become more docile and choose to ignore issues that can be corruption or something that affects all, not just Ds or Rs. They often act as cheerleaders rather than watchdogs. And often are the last to know, so to speak, until the dreck hits the fan.
Anyhow, this part of the article is what gets my goat:
Because employment at these city-based newspapers is voluntary, they tend to attract reporters who want to live in cities. The New York Times, for example, gets the Iowans who want to leave Iowa and live in Manhattan or Brooklyn.
OK, yes that maybe true at a level. But a lot of people want to leave Iowa, work in big cities and are. . .conservative.
But, Mr. Franke-Ruta goes on:
Newspapers hire people who can deal with working in cities -- big, major, complicated, diverse, progressive cities -- and who will obey the socially progressive laws of those cities at work, even if they live off in the 'burbs somewhere.
So what does that mean? Only liberals need apply to newspapers in a big city? That discrimination against conservatives is OK in this area?
Once again, face in palm and head now violently shaking.
Is it really true that a good reporter who is conservative can't hack it in the big city? Is it really true that a conservative reporter that follows a story with no fear or favor can't be a conservative? In fact I will argue right here and now that is exactly what big city newsrooms need more than ever. It is more likely that they will not take corruption and bad governance at face value. It is more likely that the conservative writer or even worse in their eyes, editor, will be more than fair because of the fact they are the ones to point out the lack of balance in reporting, choice of stories, etc.
Honestly, this is the weakest case for bias I have seen.
In fact, it is why even the big city newspapers are beginning to see their comeuppance.
Most are losing readers at alarming rates. Most have not figured out to have a compelling, easy to navigate website that not only compliments the physical newspaper but makes the newspaper reader want to check out the website. The only reason people will do that is because many newspapers are making things only accessible online.
Instead of toeing the party line in said liberal big city, a good shake-up would be in order. Where all news is reported no matter what. Where political correctness sensibilities are thrown out the window. Where the liberal cocoon is busted wide open.
People will respect a newspaper that takes on sacred cows in the name of good reporting,
Seriously, it is what people are always looking for.
It is why alternative media, be it on the left or right is more widely read than a daily newspaper.
What Mr. Franke-Ruta is trying to do is essentially say hey, yeah the big city newspapers are propaganda sheets for the left, but it is only because only lefties live in big cities. And hey, if you are conservative, don't bother to even apply because you are probably from some part of the country that can't hack even being in a big city. Of course unless you can't wait to get the hell out of Deadwood, South Dakota and hate where you were brought up and want to stick it to the people you once thought were pretty OK, then apply.
It is this lefty cocoon thinking that will eventually be the death of the American newspaper. Unless people like Mr. Franke-Ruta wake up and kind of step out away from Manhattan and see the rest of the United States, maybe in 20 years or less there will not be a slew of newspapers around the way they are today.
No More Bushes Post #2,143
Ahh, the Republican establishment. Ya gotta love em. No, Bless their hearts.
Once again the drumbeats are pounding that the ONLY way the GOP is going to win the presidential race in 2016 is to. . .wait for it. . .nominate another man named Bush for the presidency.
OK, this is not someone with the first name of George but this one is John. John Ellis Bush. Who is better known as Jeb.
And the Politico is the latest of the Leftywhore media to gladly help pound the drum for Jeb Bush.
May please, please beat this drum?
NO! MORE! BUSHES!
Now in fairness, Jeb Bush is the most conservative of the three Bush men. But there is something that the Politico article notes:
Over cocktails and at dinner tables, Republicans in Washington worry he’d face criticism of dynasty building and attacks from Democrats that his policies will be the same his older brother’s, many of which remain widely unpopular.
Please note the area I highlighted.
Dynasty building.
Really?! Ya think that would be a problem?!
Lets see, 1988-1992, George H. W. Bush. In 2000-2008, George W. Bush. And yet there are those thinking, hey its a great idea to coronate another Bush.
A huge reason we fought a war with Great Britain in the first place was to escape a monarchy. And to keep thinking that one family gets to run a political party, well what better way to say monarchy than that?
Oh, this is not a Republican only problem.
The Democrats are constantly seeing the Clinton family as their monarchical savior as well. Once the end of Obama occurs in 2016, why they are pushing for Hillary Clinton to be their keeper 'o the White House. And if that fails, trust me they will go back into the Obama well.
It ill bodes that this Republic, and the Republican party in particular, does not get that this is not good for democracy at all.
We can't just keep shutting out people without the last name Bush.
Instead of trying to push Jeb Bush to make a run for the presidency, the poo bahs of the Republican party need to do something, well unusual.
Just get the hell out of the way and let the process play out..
For once in a generation, it really looks like there are a slew of young raw talent that can all make great candidates.
Of course, despite the immigration fiasco, there is Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. And two others that are potential candidates is the libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) and a dark horse in Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). And in the House of Representatives there is former Republican vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin). Go out to the states and there are some great governors. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Nikki Haley of South Carolina, and yes even Rick Perry of Texas could be serious contenders.
The point is that we Republicans have to stop anointing the next in line. And the poo bahs want us to believe that Jeb Bush should be that next in line.
And I say this as an admirer of the Bush family.
Sorry conspiracy nuts but the Bush family has made money and been able to be great public servants, led by former President George H. W. Bush. And nothing wrong with that. If truth be told, the objection that I have had is when they do not follow their correct conservative instincts and that gets 'em in trouble.
As I said, Jeb Bush has the most conservative record of H. W. and W. as governor of Florida.
But timing is everything.
And this is not the time.
It is time for the Republican party to move away from the Bushes for a while and look to a new generation to lead the GOP in the 2016 election and beyond.
In other words. . .No More Bushes!
Once again the drumbeats are pounding that the ONLY way the GOP is going to win the presidential race in 2016 is to. . .wait for it. . .nominate another man named Bush for the presidency.
OK, this is not someone with the first name of George but this one is John. John Ellis Bush. Who is better known as Jeb.
And the Politico is the latest of the Leftywhore media to gladly help pound the drum for Jeb Bush.
May please, please beat this drum?
NO! MORE! BUSHES!
Now in fairness, Jeb Bush is the most conservative of the three Bush men. But there is something that the Politico article notes:
Over cocktails and at dinner tables, Republicans in Washington worry he’d face criticism of dynasty building and attacks from Democrats that his policies will be the same his older brother’s, many of which remain widely unpopular.
Please note the area I highlighted.
Dynasty building.
Really?! Ya think that would be a problem?!
Lets see, 1988-1992, George H. W. Bush. In 2000-2008, George W. Bush. And yet there are those thinking, hey its a great idea to coronate another Bush.
A huge reason we fought a war with Great Britain in the first place was to escape a monarchy. And to keep thinking that one family gets to run a political party, well what better way to say monarchy than that?
Oh, this is not a Republican only problem.
The Democrats are constantly seeing the Clinton family as their monarchical savior as well. Once the end of Obama occurs in 2016, why they are pushing for Hillary Clinton to be their keeper 'o the White House. And if that fails, trust me they will go back into the Obama well.
It ill bodes that this Republic, and the Republican party in particular, does not get that this is not good for democracy at all.
We can't just keep shutting out people without the last name Bush.
Instead of trying to push Jeb Bush to make a run for the presidency, the poo bahs of the Republican party need to do something, well unusual.
Just get the hell out of the way and let the process play out..
For once in a generation, it really looks like there are a slew of young raw talent that can all make great candidates.
Of course, despite the immigration fiasco, there is Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. And two others that are potential candidates is the libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) and a dark horse in Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). And in the House of Representatives there is former Republican vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin). Go out to the states and there are some great governors. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Nikki Haley of South Carolina, and yes even Rick Perry of Texas could be serious contenders.
The point is that we Republicans have to stop anointing the next in line. And the poo bahs want us to believe that Jeb Bush should be that next in line.
And I say this as an admirer of the Bush family.
Sorry conspiracy nuts but the Bush family has made money and been able to be great public servants, led by former President George H. W. Bush. And nothing wrong with that. If truth be told, the objection that I have had is when they do not follow their correct conservative instincts and that gets 'em in trouble.
As I said, Jeb Bush has the most conservative record of H. W. and W. as governor of Florida.
But timing is everything.
And this is not the time.
It is time for the Republican party to move away from the Bushes for a while and look to a new generation to lead the GOP in the 2016 election and beyond.
In other words. . .No More Bushes!
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
And My President Could Not Attend Thatcher Funeral For This Epic Fail?
It is truly amazing and I have to be brutally honest that I am ashamed of my president, the Dear Leader, Barack Hussein Obama.
Yes, although I did not vote for him and do not support his policies, he is still my president. He is the representative of this Great Land. He is the face of America no matter our politics.
Why am I ashamed?
Because our Dear Leader, President Obama, and the current administration could not find someone of a high level, even the president himself, to attend the funeral of the late British prime minister, Baroness Lady Thatcher.
What did Team Obama do?
Well, they sure as hell did not send any current administration official, like the current secretary of state, John F. Kerry.
But they did find two former SoS's to send.
Former SoS's James Baker and George Schultz led the official American delegation to the just short of state funeral for the former prime minister, known as the Iron Lady.
And hey, to show the importance of the event, they rounded off the delegation with the current charge d' affaires of the United States embassy and a former ambassador to Britain.
OK, so if you think that I am being petty, consider this.
When the Venezuela strong-man Hugo Chavez went to his reward several weeks ago, Team Obama sent also the current charge d' affaires of the United States embassy in Caracas. But they also sent a current Democrat congressman, Gregory Meeks, and a former congressman, William Delahunt.
So, why not send a current member of congress to the Thatcher funeral? Or a couple of members, one from each party?
Because the message is clear.
Team Obama wanted to make nice-nice with Venezuela while Britain, eh not so much.
Since Team Obama came to Washington in 2009, the list of slights to our closest European ally is pretty long.
Another reason that Team Obama could not be bothered with proper protocol for the funeral of a former British prime minister?
Well the full-court press for gun control legislation that was voted on today in the senate.
You know how it did?
Epic. Fail.
The vaunted compromise Manchin-Toomey amendment lost 46-54, six votes short of passage. Which in turn led to defeat of other amendments and the gun control bill will officially be pulled from the senate floor tomorrow. Here is the round up from HotAir.com.
OK, the full force of the Obama administration was used again for what? For quite possibly the worst defeat for the administration.
In reality, a quick trip to Britain may have been a good thing.
Again, the priority of the administration was on an issue that maybe four percent of the public believe is a major issue. While most people are still focused on the economy and jobs, Team Obama is focused on. . .gun control.
And a little more diminishment of United States prestige abroad.
Look, no question that this current president and the former prime minister would be, well pretty much opposed to everything each other stood for.
But, one should think that even this administration would have the wherewithal to at the very least send the current SoS, Mr Kerry, to what ends up being a state funeral since Queen Elizabeth herself showed up.
A real coup would have been for the Dear Leader, President Obama, himself to show up. There would not be an issue of security for it was as strong for this as possible considering the local loons that promised trouble.
But, again, this administration has no clue on just about anything.
But hey, it does know how to lose on legislation graciously as the Dear Leader, President Obama, showed here:
Yes, although I did not vote for him and do not support his policies, he is still my president. He is the representative of this Great Land. He is the face of America no matter our politics.
Why am I ashamed?
Because our Dear Leader, President Obama, and the current administration could not find someone of a high level, even the president himself, to attend the funeral of the late British prime minister, Baroness Lady Thatcher.
What did Team Obama do?
Well, they sure as hell did not send any current administration official, like the current secretary of state, John F. Kerry.
But they did find two former SoS's to send.
Former SoS's James Baker and George Schultz led the official American delegation to the just short of state funeral for the former prime minister, known as the Iron Lady.
And hey, to show the importance of the event, they rounded off the delegation with the current charge d' affaires of the United States embassy and a former ambassador to Britain.
OK, so if you think that I am being petty, consider this.
When the Venezuela strong-man Hugo Chavez went to his reward several weeks ago, Team Obama sent also the current charge d' affaires of the United States embassy in Caracas. But they also sent a current Democrat congressman, Gregory Meeks, and a former congressman, William Delahunt.
So, why not send a current member of congress to the Thatcher funeral? Or a couple of members, one from each party?
Because the message is clear.
Team Obama wanted to make nice-nice with Venezuela while Britain, eh not so much.
Since Team Obama came to Washington in 2009, the list of slights to our closest European ally is pretty long.
Another reason that Team Obama could not be bothered with proper protocol for the funeral of a former British prime minister?
Well the full-court press for gun control legislation that was voted on today in the senate.
You know how it did?
Epic. Fail.
The vaunted compromise Manchin-Toomey amendment lost 46-54, six votes short of passage. Which in turn led to defeat of other amendments and the gun control bill will officially be pulled from the senate floor tomorrow. Here is the round up from HotAir.com.
OK, the full force of the Obama administration was used again for what? For quite possibly the worst defeat for the administration.
In reality, a quick trip to Britain may have been a good thing.
Again, the priority of the administration was on an issue that maybe four percent of the public believe is a major issue. While most people are still focused on the economy and jobs, Team Obama is focused on. . .gun control.
And a little more diminishment of United States prestige abroad.
Look, no question that this current president and the former prime minister would be, well pretty much opposed to everything each other stood for.
But, one should think that even this administration would have the wherewithal to at the very least send the current SoS, Mr Kerry, to what ends up being a state funeral since Queen Elizabeth herself showed up.
A real coup would have been for the Dear Leader, President Obama, himself to show up. There would not be an issue of security for it was as strong for this as possible considering the local loons that promised trouble.
But, again, this administration has no clue on just about anything.
But hey, it does know how to lose on legislation graciously as the Dear Leader, President Obama, showed here:
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
The Second Boston Massacre
Everyone knows the story of the Boston Massacre of 1770 as a precursor to the American Revolution.
But yesterday within 10 seconds, there was the second Boston Massacre and this one is in no way an even distant reason related to the original Boston Massacre.
As thousands of runners were, in some cases slowly, crossing the finish line in the world-famous Boston Marathon, not one but two bombs went off within 10 seconds of each other.
As of this writing, the death toll stands at three dead and at least 176 wounded. Of those wounded, there are reports that maybe 20 to 30 people faced or had limbs amputated. Among the dead was eight-year old Martin Richard from nearby Dorchester, Massachusetts.
There are so many sad stories and yet of course the stories of what makes Americans so damn awesome. People helping runners who had no where to go get somewhere. Many Marathon runners going to hospitals to donate blood. People just there for each other. Sometimes, it is all that can be done in events like this.
Once again, way too many people are calling a criminal, no very likely terrorist act a "tragedy".
I will write this til my fingers turn blue.
A tragedy is when someone dies in a car crash. A tragedy is when a someone has a work-related injury.
A cowardly act of terrorism is not and should never be called a tragedy.
It is an act of war.
Now the one thing is that no one is claiming responsibility. There is a lot of speculation, but nothing concrete at least being leaked and or told to the public.
So at this point we do not know if it was an act of Islamofacist terror, home-grown Islamofacists, domestic terrorists or a lone nut (Thank you Michael Medved for that one!).
But yesterday, well it sure as hell did not stop some "reporters" and or "analysts" from bringing up their most likely suspect(s).
The eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll RIGHT WING in the United States and the Tea Party in particular.
UGH!
Thanks to this roundup from The Blaze website, you can see the almost immediate need to for one, find who did it immediately and when all else fails, why speculate that it was some right wing group.
I will write this.
Yes, it may end up being that some right-wing extremist did commit this terrorist act.
But hey, what happened to letting an investigation happen before planting a seed in people's mind that it can only be someone from the American far-right?
Our Leftywhore media, well to coin a phrase, they choose to never let a crisis go to waste. Actual reporting, well they leave it to the social media and simply copy it rather than using some good ol' fashioned shoe leather.
Which leads to my obvious gripe with major news events and the endless coverage.
After a while, it is pointless. There is nothing new to report and yet they keep droning on, and on, and on. And thus you get these people basically making stuff up as they go along.
There are things that we can do now.
One, we as a people must be vigilant. We must always be aware of what is around us. Even you you're not certain but suspicious, act on it. As a purveyor of public transportation, I make sure to scope out the people and best access to exits. And always aware of what people have with them.
Two, we can not ever let such actions affect our everyday life. We must and have to go on. And yes, I can not wait to get to the first Dodger game of the season. And I will not worry about what could happen, but be aware again.
Three, no more word games and or political correctness. That means stop referring to these heinous acts as tragedies. THEY ARE CRIMINAL ACTS AT THE LEAST AND TERRORIST ACTS IN WORST CASE SCENARIO! call it what it is.
Four, be prepared for what ever happens. As I noted, yes, it could end up being a far right wing group and or lone nut. Or it could be Islamofacist terrorists. Or something not even on our radars. In other words, we should not be surprised of what transpires in the investigation.
I leave you with this unfortunate video reminder of what happened yesterday. Monday, April 15, 2013. The Second Boston Massacre.
But yesterday within 10 seconds, there was the second Boston Massacre and this one is in no way an even distant reason related to the original Boston Massacre.
As thousands of runners were, in some cases slowly, crossing the finish line in the world-famous Boston Marathon, not one but two bombs went off within 10 seconds of each other.
As of this writing, the death toll stands at three dead and at least 176 wounded. Of those wounded, there are reports that maybe 20 to 30 people faced or had limbs amputated. Among the dead was eight-year old Martin Richard from nearby Dorchester, Massachusetts.
There are so many sad stories and yet of course the stories of what makes Americans so damn awesome. People helping runners who had no where to go get somewhere. Many Marathon runners going to hospitals to donate blood. People just there for each other. Sometimes, it is all that can be done in events like this.
Once again, way too many people are calling a criminal, no very likely terrorist act a "tragedy".
I will write this til my fingers turn blue.
A tragedy is when someone dies in a car crash. A tragedy is when a someone has a work-related injury.
A cowardly act of terrorism is not and should never be called a tragedy.
It is an act of war.
Now the one thing is that no one is claiming responsibility. There is a lot of speculation, but nothing concrete at least being leaked and or told to the public.
So at this point we do not know if it was an act of Islamofacist terror, home-grown Islamofacists, domestic terrorists or a lone nut (Thank you Michael Medved for that one!).
But yesterday, well it sure as hell did not stop some "reporters" and or "analysts" from bringing up their most likely suspect(s).
The eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll RIGHT WING in the United States and the Tea Party in particular.
UGH!
Thanks to this roundup from The Blaze website, you can see the almost immediate need to for one, find who did it immediately and when all else fails, why speculate that it was some right wing group.
I will write this.
Yes, it may end up being that some right-wing extremist did commit this terrorist act.
But hey, what happened to letting an investigation happen before planting a seed in people's mind that it can only be someone from the American far-right?
Our Leftywhore media, well to coin a phrase, they choose to never let a crisis go to waste. Actual reporting, well they leave it to the social media and simply copy it rather than using some good ol' fashioned shoe leather.
Which leads to my obvious gripe with major news events and the endless coverage.
After a while, it is pointless. There is nothing new to report and yet they keep droning on, and on, and on. And thus you get these people basically making stuff up as they go along.
There are things that we can do now.
One, we as a people must be vigilant. We must always be aware of what is around us. Even you you're not certain but suspicious, act on it. As a purveyor of public transportation, I make sure to scope out the people and best access to exits. And always aware of what people have with them.
Two, we can not ever let such actions affect our everyday life. We must and have to go on. And yes, I can not wait to get to the first Dodger game of the season. And I will not worry about what could happen, but be aware again.
Three, no more word games and or political correctness. That means stop referring to these heinous acts as tragedies. THEY ARE CRIMINAL ACTS AT THE LEAST AND TERRORIST ACTS IN WORST CASE SCENARIO! call it what it is.
Four, be prepared for what ever happens. As I noted, yes, it could end up being a far right wing group and or lone nut. Or it could be Islamofacist terrorists. Or something not even on our radars. In other words, we should not be surprised of what transpires in the investigation.
I leave you with this unfortunate video reminder of what happened yesterday. Monday, April 15, 2013. The Second Boston Massacre.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Another Case Of Media Bias?
I do want to be fair to my local fish-wrap, the Pasadena Star-News. Usually it does a pretty good job for a low to mid-sized daily.
But what I am about to show you, well I will let you be the judge.
This past Monday, two famous people died.
One was Annette Funicello, former Mousketeer, actress whose wholesome image made her perfect for the beach party movies of the 1960s.
The other was the former prime minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Lady Margaret Thatcher.
So, who got the front page coverage?
Why, Annette Funicello, of course.
And as you can see, the story continues inside.
So, what about Lady Thatcher?
Well, she made page seven. One can be glad it was still in the main news section, right?
Even the headline is sort of demeaning, doncha think? And look how short it is in comparison to the death of Mrs. Funicello? And yes, the Thatcher story is an AP story. But still, who had a great impact on people? Who was able to make substantive change to where they lived?
Now I want to be clear. This is no disrespect to Mrs. Funilcello. But she had been out of public view for over 20 years as the effects of Multiple Sclerosis became unbearable.
Lady Thatcher, while out of office for 23 years, still was making an impact on her nation and those that mattered.
OK, so maybe it was not a case of media bias. But I was not the only one to question the fish-wraps news judgement.
In the next day's fish-wrap, two letters to the editor questioned the judgement of the stories and their placement.
If I was the editor, I would have put Lady Thatcher's death in the box. But, I would have put Mrs. Funicello's death article to the right. Thus two people that are important in different ways would have gotten the kind of respectful coverage that both deserved.
I am going with the theory that this is a slight to Lady Thatcher on the part of the editor. Absolute bias? Probably not, but Lady Thatcher's passing is more of consequence because of the changes that she made as the first woman elected to the post of prime minister in the U. K.'s history. Mrs. Funicello did make a lot of people happy and was active in the early days of American television.
At the end of the day, this is another case of media bias.
But what I am about to show you, well I will let you be the judge.
This past Monday, two famous people died.
One was Annette Funicello, former Mousketeer, actress whose wholesome image made her perfect for the beach party movies of the 1960s.
The other was the former prime minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Lady Margaret Thatcher.
So, who got the front page coverage?
And as you can see, the story continues inside.
Well, she made page seven. One can be glad it was still in the main news section, right?
Now I want to be clear. This is no disrespect to Mrs. Funilcello. But she had been out of public view for over 20 years as the effects of Multiple Sclerosis became unbearable.
Lady Thatcher, while out of office for 23 years, still was making an impact on her nation and those that mattered.
OK, so maybe it was not a case of media bias. But I was not the only one to question the fish-wraps news judgement.
In the next day's fish-wrap, two letters to the editor questioned the judgement of the stories and their placement.
If I was the editor, I would have put Lady Thatcher's death in the box. But, I would have put Mrs. Funicello's death article to the right. Thus two people that are important in different ways would have gotten the kind of respectful coverage that both deserved.
I am going with the theory that this is a slight to Lady Thatcher on the part of the editor. Absolute bias? Probably not, but Lady Thatcher's passing is more of consequence because of the changes that she made as the first woman elected to the post of prime minister in the U. K.'s history. Mrs. Funicello did make a lot of people happy and was active in the early days of American television.
At the end of the day, this is another case of media bias.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Are You As Worried About Red Korea As I Am?
OK, most people refer to it as North Korea, or in the Orwellian term The Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
But I prefer to call it what it is.
Red Korea.
And these days, I must admit that I am worried about the current lunatic from the Kim family running the show. And that would be Kim Jong-un, the 28-year old successor to his daddy, Kim Jong-il. And Kim Jong-il took over from his daddy, the Great Leader, Kim Il-sung.
See a pattern here?
For a nation that touts communist-socialism, they sure know how to keep the power in the family, don't they?
Well for the last 20 years, the Red Koreans have been seeking and more than likely not only have a nuclear bomb, but the missile capability to deliver fatal blows beyond the Korean peninsula. \
And today, the Pentagon had to make what I consider a frightening admission.
That the Red Koreans "probably" have enough know how to arm a ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead.
Probably?
Want to know what is worse?
That the same Defense Intelligence Agency that made this horrible admission also said that a potential weapon wouldn't be very reliable.
And hence this is where I ask these questions.
What worries you more?
That Red Korea has nukes?
That they have ballistic missile capability to deliver nuke warheads?
That missiles may not be very reliable?
Well, all three sure as hell worry me.
But lets look at the reliability issue.
If the Red Koreans are at a point where they are ready to end the 1953 armistice treaty that essentially ended the Korean War, what do the leaders care about reliability? After all, the more unreliable, the more chaos ensues and the armaments and troops of the world's fourth largest army goes marching on to the free South, the Republic of Korea. And with the South capital of Seoul only less than 30 miles from the DMZ, the conditions could be ripe for the North to capture a very wounded South and the world possibly dealing with a nuked Tokyo. Or even a city in Red China, maybe Hong Kong.
OK, why take out their one and only ally, Red China?
Well, if the Red Koreans want to take the South by force and keep the Red Chinese out of it one way or the other, why not take out a city?
Here is the thing.
If the Red Korean military now have a leader that is willing to settle the issue of a divided Korea once and for all, and it does appear that Kim Jong-un is that leader, they have to take out all possible impediments. And while Red China and Red Korea have been allies, it has long been thought that the Red Chinese have been able to keep Red Korea on a short enough leash so that they do not go down this road.
But what if that is no more?
Another absolutely frightening thought is what we do not know about the Red Korean nuke program. And if missile delivery is the only thing that they are feverishly working on.
What is the possibility that a suitcase nuke is possibly on American soil as I type this? What if all that needs to be done is wait for the order and BOOM! There goes Los Angeles. Or Chicago. Or New York City. Maybe somewhere more in the Heartland like St. Louis or Kansas City? Hell, why not all of those cities and more?
Again, we do not have reliable intelligence to really know what is really going on inside Red Korea and who would be crazy enough to align themselves to carry out such a beyond dastardly deed.
This leads back to a reality.
That the United States has been trying to play geopolitics with a regime that is not only delusional but shewed in how they play on the sympathies of seeing starving and dying Red Koreans to force the West to give food in return for maybe delaying the inevitable.
And this is a bipartisan issue.
Former President Bill Clinton tried diplomacy. Seemed like it worked. But it all hinged on meaningless sanctions to force to thuggish commie-monarchist Kims to open up the nation more and not develop a stronger armed forces that included nukes.
Former President George W. Bush at least called the Red Koreans part of the Axis of Evil. But really, that is about all as being preoccupied with the two-front wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, North Korea was put on the back burner.
And now the current occupant of the White House, President Obama, has had no better luck and followed the same geopolitical games that may see a horrible reality occur on his watch.
The real policy should have always been regime change.
Instead of buying time and allowing the maniacal commie-monarchist Kims to stay in power, the United States should have instituted a naval blockade when it was obvious the Red Koreans were working on The Bomb. It also should have impressed on South Korea to also blockade their border with the North. Now, the North would have been helped by Red China, but they could have been pressured to pressure the North not to develop nukes.
Period.
And if there were any forces within Red Korea that could be identified as wanting to topple the Kim regime, they should have been made a proxy and aid given to them to begin a popular revolt within the Hermit Kingdom.
Oh but that would be provocative, right?
But threatening to nuke South Korea is not?
Do we just keep deluding ourselves into thinking that there are cooler heads within the Red Korean hierarchy?
Well, if there are it is more like were. The hawks are winning and see this Kim as the one to lead them to defeat the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll South Koreans and make the whole Korean peninsula a worker's paradise.
I would not often link to the London Daily Mirror for it is a left-wing tabloid rag. But this article with video shows the type of people we are dealing with in Red Korea. Again, it is frightening.
Now, are you as worried about Red Korea as I am?
But I prefer to call it what it is.
Red Korea.
And these days, I must admit that I am worried about the current lunatic from the Kim family running the show. And that would be Kim Jong-un, the 28-year old successor to his daddy, Kim Jong-il. And Kim Jong-il took over from his daddy, the Great Leader, Kim Il-sung.
See a pattern here?
For a nation that touts communist-socialism, they sure know how to keep the power in the family, don't they?
Well for the last 20 years, the Red Koreans have been seeking and more than likely not only have a nuclear bomb, but the missile capability to deliver fatal blows beyond the Korean peninsula. \
And today, the Pentagon had to make what I consider a frightening admission.
That the Red Koreans "probably" have enough know how to arm a ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead.
Probably?
Want to know what is worse?
That the same Defense Intelligence Agency that made this horrible admission also said that a potential weapon wouldn't be very reliable.
And hence this is where I ask these questions.
What worries you more?
That Red Korea has nukes?
That they have ballistic missile capability to deliver nuke warheads?
That missiles may not be very reliable?
Well, all three sure as hell worry me.
But lets look at the reliability issue.
If the Red Koreans are at a point where they are ready to end the 1953 armistice treaty that essentially ended the Korean War, what do the leaders care about reliability? After all, the more unreliable, the more chaos ensues and the armaments and troops of the world's fourth largest army goes marching on to the free South, the Republic of Korea. And with the South capital of Seoul only less than 30 miles from the DMZ, the conditions could be ripe for the North to capture a very wounded South and the world possibly dealing with a nuked Tokyo. Or even a city in Red China, maybe Hong Kong.
OK, why take out their one and only ally, Red China?
Well, if the Red Koreans want to take the South by force and keep the Red Chinese out of it one way or the other, why not take out a city?
Here is the thing.
If the Red Korean military now have a leader that is willing to settle the issue of a divided Korea once and for all, and it does appear that Kim Jong-un is that leader, they have to take out all possible impediments. And while Red China and Red Korea have been allies, it has long been thought that the Red Chinese have been able to keep Red Korea on a short enough leash so that they do not go down this road.
But what if that is no more?
Another absolutely frightening thought is what we do not know about the Red Korean nuke program. And if missile delivery is the only thing that they are feverishly working on.
What is the possibility that a suitcase nuke is possibly on American soil as I type this? What if all that needs to be done is wait for the order and BOOM! There goes Los Angeles. Or Chicago. Or New York City. Maybe somewhere more in the Heartland like St. Louis or Kansas City? Hell, why not all of those cities and more?
Again, we do not have reliable intelligence to really know what is really going on inside Red Korea and who would be crazy enough to align themselves to carry out such a beyond dastardly deed.
This leads back to a reality.
That the United States has been trying to play geopolitics with a regime that is not only delusional but shewed in how they play on the sympathies of seeing starving and dying Red Koreans to force the West to give food in return for maybe delaying the inevitable.
And this is a bipartisan issue.
Former President Bill Clinton tried diplomacy. Seemed like it worked. But it all hinged on meaningless sanctions to force to thuggish commie-monarchist Kims to open up the nation more and not develop a stronger armed forces that included nukes.
Former President George W. Bush at least called the Red Koreans part of the Axis of Evil. But really, that is about all as being preoccupied with the two-front wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, North Korea was put on the back burner.
And now the current occupant of the White House, President Obama, has had no better luck and followed the same geopolitical games that may see a horrible reality occur on his watch.
The real policy should have always been regime change.
Instead of buying time and allowing the maniacal commie-monarchist Kims to stay in power, the United States should have instituted a naval blockade when it was obvious the Red Koreans were working on The Bomb. It also should have impressed on South Korea to also blockade their border with the North. Now, the North would have been helped by Red China, but they could have been pressured to pressure the North not to develop nukes.
Period.
And if there were any forces within Red Korea that could be identified as wanting to topple the Kim regime, they should have been made a proxy and aid given to them to begin a popular revolt within the Hermit Kingdom.
Oh but that would be provocative, right?
But threatening to nuke South Korea is not?
Do we just keep deluding ourselves into thinking that there are cooler heads within the Red Korean hierarchy?
Well, if there are it is more like were. The hawks are winning and see this Kim as the one to lead them to defeat the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll South Koreans and make the whole Korean peninsula a worker's paradise.
I would not often link to the London Daily Mirror for it is a left-wing tabloid rag. But this article with video shows the type of people we are dealing with in Red Korea. Again, it is frightening.
Now, are you as worried about Red Korea as I am?
Tuesday, April 09, 2013
Baroness Margaret Thatcher, 1925-2013
A note to readers:
This is going to be two posts in one as the first part are my thoughts on the late former British Prime Minister, Baroness Margaret Thatcher and her legacy. The second part will be about the vile, scum of the Earth that celebrated Baroness Mrs. Thatcher's death yesterday
Lady Thatcher was an amazing woman of many firsts, but the most important was when she became the leader of the Conservative party in 1975. By that when the general election campaign of 1979 came to pass and the Conservatives won the majority of parliamentary seats, she was asked by Queen Elizabeth II to form a government. The first time a woman would be prime minister of the U. K. And not only did the Conservatives win in 1979 with 44% of the national vote and 339 parliamentary seats, they won in 1983 and in 1987.
Oh yes, Lady Thatcher was known as the Iron Lady. And she was truly that. An Iron Lady.
What is amazing about Lady Thatcher is that she represented something really different in a British political leader. She was really one of the people, not an elite trained at the citadels of power. But the daughter of a country grocer who went to public schools and eventually matriculated from Oxford with a B. S. degree in chemistry. She worked as a research chemist before meeting and marrying Denis Thatcher. After that she went to law school and became the American equivalent to a tax attorney. It was not until 1959 that she would eventually win a seat to the parliament from the constituency of Finchley. She would be there throughout her political career.
Lady Thatcher worked hard in everything that she did. And it eventually paid off when the Conservative party came to power in 1970. Then Prime Minister Edward Heath appointed then Mrs. Thatcher to be the Education Secretary.
When the Heath government fell in 1974, the Conservatives went into opposition and the long knives were out for Mr. Heath. And the beneficiary of that was Mrs. Thatcher who ended up winning the leadership fight.
And then was the election of 1979.
The question was would the people of the U. K. vote not just for the Conservatives but a woman to lead them?
In 1978, the Labour-led government of then Prime Minister James Callaghan faced a series of damaging strikes in the so-called "Winter of discontent". It was that and the British economy in free-fall that led the voters to give the Conservatives a 44 seat parliament majority and by default the keys of 10 Downing Street to Margaret Thatcher.
And Prime Minister Thatcher hit the ground running in her effort to reform not just the British government, but the people's whole attitudes in general.
Mrs. Thatcher sought to combat staggering high inflation of 18% as well as high taxes and an increasingly expensive welfare state.
Heavily influenced by Milton Friedman and other libertarian economists, she hiked interest rates to curb inflation. Lowered income taxes. Her tight-money policies brought down inflation to under 10% and the economy improved by 1983 where the Conservatives won reelection.
After that election, Mrs. Thatcher's Conservatives went on to privatize huge sections of the state economy.
The steel industry, telecommunications, electricity and many others were eventually privatized. Even the railroads were eventually privatized.
In the process, to be blunt, Mrs. Thatcher had to break the power of the Trades Union Congress, the U. K. equivalent to the AFL-CIO. The most important victory was in the national Miner's strike of 1984. It was there that the Thatcher government waited out the illegal strikers and broke the power of the unions for a generation. And that led to a period of economic growth that has been unmatched since then.
In foreign policy, Mrs. Thatcher was a staunch anti-communist. She supported a hard-line in dealing with the then Soviet Union. Until one Mikhail Gorbachev came along. He was a young Soviet Communist part apparatchik that became General Secretary of the Communist party. Mrs. Thatcher believed that this was the leader that the West could deal with to reduce nuclear arms and long-term Soviet influence. And she was right. Between her and then President Ronald Reagan, they began the process of destroying the Soviet Union from within and also militarily.
Eventually by 1992, the Soviet Union would be no more and Soviet communism also went away.
Mrs. Thatcher also ended up being the leader that gave back the territory of Hong Kong to Red China. That is still to this day a controversial decision, but it is done.
Another important thing that Mrs. Thatcher did was move the nation as a whole to the right and the Labour party to the center. If there is no Margaret Thatcher, there is no Tony Blair.
But make no mistake, Mrs. Thatcher had opponents in her own Conservative party. Her internal opponents were known as the "Wets", or to Americanize it, RINOs*. The Wets were those afraid that Mrs. Thatcher's more controversial policies would cost the Conservatives in elections. They did not really want to cut the size of government. They felt that they had an obligation to run the welfare state that the Labour party instituted after World War II better. Sounds familiar, does it not?
All that aside, Mrs. Thatcher and her policies ended up winning in the end. She was a trans formative leader in the best sense.
Many, many British left wingers hated her. Hated her viscerally. These sick degenerates celebrated Lady Thatcher's death yesterday and that leads to the second half of this post.
Why Celebrate Baroness Thatcher's Death As The British Left Has Done?
I must admit that I am utterly amazed that some people in the U. K. were actually celebrating the death of the former prime minister, Baroness Margaret Thatcher.
Yet there they were. All these hooligans, whooping it up. Happy that a duly elected leader is dead. Now granted, this display was in the Brixton section of London. It is one of the flash points of race riots that gripped Great Britain in the early 1980s. It was here that then Prime Minister Thatcher showed that law and order first, questions and solutions later were the order of the day.
But the celebrations, if one wants to call it that, were not just in places like Brixton. It was in cities such as Liverpool, Bristol, Leeds, London. All over the U. K. and even in Northern Ireland. And according to this report in The Daily Mail, these celebrations are making security for the just short of state funeral for Lady Thatcher a real headache.
And for a taste of the vile of the left in the U. K., here is a wee bit o' a palate cleanser.
So nice.
Yet while many of these hooligans may have not been born when Lady Thatcher was prime minister, they are heavily influenced by the entrenched left.
And make no mistake, the left in Britain in years ahead in influence over the American left.
But again, Lady Thatcher won three elections in a row. If she was soooo terrible as these people claim, how could she win? How did she become the leader of the Conservative party in the first place?
That, my friends is something that they can not and will not be able to answer. For if they truly did, they would have to insult a wide swath of the people of the U. K.
What is even weirder is that Mrs. Thatcher has not been a politician since her eventual ouster in 1990. For about 23 years, she has been but an observer and not a player.
But this is what the left does. Gins up anger. Gets people to blame someone else for real and or imagined ills. And that is what we see here.
People happy that an elected official is dead.
Contrast that to when another figure went off to the Glory in 2004, Ronald Reagan. Why many on the American left were falling all over themselves to claim Mr. Reagan in some way as one of their own. In a past life, Mr. Reagan was an FDR Democrat. But by the time he became president, he was also the kind of trans formative leader that Lady Thatcher was. But, by and large, most lefties did not encourage nor celebrate with the same venom the death of Mr. Reagan that the Brits are with Lady Thatcher.
But this reaction I think would make Lady Thatcher laugh. Seriously.
I mean, she would be laughing at the time that these vermin are wasting getting drunk and partying over her demise. She would be saying that they should get off the public dole and get a job.
To me, this is the result of the loss of religion in the U. K. By that I mean the positive role that faith plays in a civil society.
The U. K. is one of the least religious nations in the world. Sure, better than most of continental Europe, but not much. The leaders of the state church, the Church of England, should be more involved in everyday life, not less. With a strong faith comes respect for others, even in politics. I do earnestly believe if there was more of that, there would be less of the utterly disgusting display of glee we see in these people over the death of an old lady.
Yes, we can take a critical look at Lady Thatcher's political life. But not mindless debauchery.
The lesson here is that when a major political figure in the United States dies, regardless of party or ideology, it brings the nation together. In the U. K., for some reason, it drives people more apart.
For that, the United States is a better people and a better nation.
Thursday, April 04, 2013
If You Live Or Will Visit Phoenix, Don't Go To A Public Pool
Frightfully, it is coming to this in the great quest to seek affirmative action in every aspect of life in the United States.
Why am I frightened?
Because it appears that one American city, and a surprising one at that, is recruiting non-White lifeguards to protect swimmers in the city pools this summer.
Nothing wrong with that on the surface.
But when you read this piece over at National Public Radio, you will see why I am frightened.
It appears that an experienced swimmer need not apply for a lifeguard position if he or she is White.
Because the Asian, Black and Hispanic kids that swim in the pools really, they want someone that looks like them. And talks like them.
Read this line from one Kelly Martinez, who actually works for the city of Phoenix as she explains this effort at minority outreach and hiring:
"The kids in the pool are all either Hispanic or black or whatever, and every lifeguard is white and we don't like that. The kids don't relate; there's language issues."
Close you eyes at this point if easily offended because I am not holding back my disgust.
What the fuck?! What the hell is this nit wit talking about?!
We don't like that "every" lifeguard supposedly at the city of Phoenix public pools are White? Really?! So, let me ask you Miss Martinez, would you rather have this scenario. No lifeguard at said pools because the minorities you are trying to outreach and give employment can not meet the minimum requirement. Like basic swimming. And a person dies in a pool. Or many. Because the people did not like looking at the White kid that they do not relate to?
Well, Miss Martinez goes double-down on this theme. Miss Martinez proceeds to put this kid on the spot:
Martinez turns to a Latina student next to her. "Do you speak Spanish?" she asks. "We need more lifeguards who can speak Spanish."
I repeat my plea from above. WTF?!
So, if I understand Miss Martinez, it would be better to have a less qualified Hispanic lifeguard that spoke Spanish and could "relate" to the Hispanic kids than to have one that may not be realatable but able to potentially save a life, right? And I suppose in Miss Martinezland, we need Blacks for the Black swimmers and Asians for the Asian swimmers, right? Nevermind that once you go Asia, better make sure it is the right one. You know, a Chinese speaker. Oh, make sure fluent in both Cantonese and Mandarin.
My head is spinning.
What a racist battle axe Miss Martinez is. And remember, she works for the city of Phoenix and is an aide to one Melissa Boyle, who seems to be in charge of this "outreach" according to the NPR article.
Now to be fair, it appears that there is some effort to identify and find minorities that have the potential and bring them to basic standards to potentially become a lifeguard.
That would be the obvious suggestion. Not for the reasons that Miss Martinez spouts off. Because as the article points out many of the Whites that do become lifeguards are not part of the neighborhood. Yes they come from the affluent parts of town. And what seems to be missing is the fact that these White kids are going into neighborhoods certainly not exactly receptive to them on the surface. What is missing is what the White kids are learning going out of their comfort zone and being of service in parts of town that need their kind of service.
Now the article does not mention it but is their anything that the lifeguards can do to help more of these kids gain swimming skills? Not to take their jobs but to be able to attain an important life skill? I know that there is the $15,000 grant, but what more can be done?
There is no doubt that swimming, rightly or wrongly, in many parts of the United States is still seen as something, well something White. Or to put it this way. If a minority person mocks a White swimmer with something life surfer boy, as I said, it is not a compliment.
But living here in So Cal, that barrier is in most places non-existent. When my stepson was in high school, he was the blond, surfer-looking kid on the swim team. However, there were Asians and Hispanics and a good representation without going out of the way of the school itself.
The reality of being a lifeguard is that he or she must be a great swimmer. And one that is very strong. Strong enough to be able to bring a drowning person from underwater. One that would be able to perform basic CPR on a potential drowning victim. I don't think for a moment that there is a race component to it. But access for minorities may be different in other parts of the United States. Lowering the basics could, no will, prove very costly in the long run if a person drowns because a less qualified lifeguard was trying to save that person.
That is what this is about.
Lowering standards.
Again, if you read what Miss Martinez says, she is not really concerned about the pool patron safety. She is worried about how a young Hispanic student who does not speak English feels about having a White lifeguard. But assumption, one that does not speak Spanish. Of course I am kind of sort of thinking, hey, why does this student not speak, wait for it. . .ENGLISH!
Now that this has come to light, the program needs to be really thought out how to gain qualified potential non-White lifeguard candidates without lowering standards.
Is it too much to ask the brain trust of Phoenix to figure out how to have more minority lifeguards without lowering the bar? Is this what we have come to in the United States that we have to risk safety to feel good?
Why am I frightened?
Because it appears that one American city, and a surprising one at that, is recruiting non-White lifeguards to protect swimmers in the city pools this summer.
Nothing wrong with that on the surface.
But when you read this piece over at National Public Radio, you will see why I am frightened.
It appears that an experienced swimmer need not apply for a lifeguard position if he or she is White.
Because the Asian, Black and Hispanic kids that swim in the pools really, they want someone that looks like them. And talks like them.
Read this line from one Kelly Martinez, who actually works for the city of Phoenix as she explains this effort at minority outreach and hiring:
"The kids in the pool are all either Hispanic or black or whatever, and every lifeguard is white and we don't like that. The kids don't relate; there's language issues."
Close you eyes at this point if easily offended because I am not holding back my disgust.
What the fuck?! What the hell is this nit wit talking about?!
We don't like that "every" lifeguard supposedly at the city of Phoenix public pools are White? Really?! So, let me ask you Miss Martinez, would you rather have this scenario. No lifeguard at said pools because the minorities you are trying to outreach and give employment can not meet the minimum requirement. Like basic swimming. And a person dies in a pool. Or many. Because the people did not like looking at the White kid that they do not relate to?
Well, Miss Martinez goes double-down on this theme. Miss Martinez proceeds to put this kid on the spot:
Martinez turns to a Latina student next to her. "Do you speak Spanish?" she asks. "We need more lifeguards who can speak Spanish."
I repeat my plea from above. WTF?!
So, if I understand Miss Martinez, it would be better to have a less qualified Hispanic lifeguard that spoke Spanish and could "relate" to the Hispanic kids than to have one that may not be realatable but able to potentially save a life, right? And I suppose in Miss Martinezland, we need Blacks for the Black swimmers and Asians for the Asian swimmers, right? Nevermind that once you go Asia, better make sure it is the right one. You know, a Chinese speaker. Oh, make sure fluent in both Cantonese and Mandarin.
My head is spinning.
What a racist battle axe Miss Martinez is. And remember, she works for the city of Phoenix and is an aide to one Melissa Boyle, who seems to be in charge of this "outreach" according to the NPR article.
Now to be fair, it appears that there is some effort to identify and find minorities that have the potential and bring them to basic standards to potentially become a lifeguard.
That would be the obvious suggestion. Not for the reasons that Miss Martinez spouts off. Because as the article points out many of the Whites that do become lifeguards are not part of the neighborhood. Yes they come from the affluent parts of town. And what seems to be missing is the fact that these White kids are going into neighborhoods certainly not exactly receptive to them on the surface. What is missing is what the White kids are learning going out of their comfort zone and being of service in parts of town that need their kind of service.
Now the article does not mention it but is their anything that the lifeguards can do to help more of these kids gain swimming skills? Not to take their jobs but to be able to attain an important life skill? I know that there is the $15,000 grant, but what more can be done?
There is no doubt that swimming, rightly or wrongly, in many parts of the United States is still seen as something, well something White. Or to put it this way. If a minority person mocks a White swimmer with something life surfer boy, as I said, it is not a compliment.
But living here in So Cal, that barrier is in most places non-existent. When my stepson was in high school, he was the blond, surfer-looking kid on the swim team. However, there were Asians and Hispanics and a good representation without going out of the way of the school itself.
The reality of being a lifeguard is that he or she must be a great swimmer. And one that is very strong. Strong enough to be able to bring a drowning person from underwater. One that would be able to perform basic CPR on a potential drowning victim. I don't think for a moment that there is a race component to it. But access for minorities may be different in other parts of the United States. Lowering the basics could, no will, prove very costly in the long run if a person drowns because a less qualified lifeguard was trying to save that person.
That is what this is about.
Lowering standards.
Again, if you read what Miss Martinez says, she is not really concerned about the pool patron safety. She is worried about how a young Hispanic student who does not speak English feels about having a White lifeguard. But assumption, one that does not speak Spanish. Of course I am kind of sort of thinking, hey, why does this student not speak, wait for it. . .ENGLISH!
Now that this has come to light, the program needs to be really thought out how to gain qualified potential non-White lifeguard candidates without lowering standards.
Is it too much to ask the brain trust of Phoenix to figure out how to have more minority lifeguards without lowering the bar? Is this what we have come to in the United States that we have to risk safety to feel good?
Tuesday, April 02, 2013
Say, Did You Hear About The Episcopal Priest And Him Slamming The "Religious Right" On Easter Sunday?
We really have to hand to The Rev. Luis Leon, rector of St. John's Episcopal church directly across the street from The White House for delivering a political sermon on Christendom's most holy day, Easter.
Or if you prefer Resurrection Sunday.
Now it would probably go unnoticed expect that there was a rather influential family at one of the Easter services.
Wanna guess what family?
Remember, St. John's is across the street from The White House.
If you guessed the first family, the Obama family, give yourself a bright, beautifully colored Easter egg.
So, what did the pastor of the church say that was offensive?
Let me be clear, I am not so much offended because in any given EC, what the Rev. Leon said is pretty moderate for being a pastor in the EC. Here it is:
“You can’t go back, you can’t live in the past. It drives me crazy when the captains of the religious right are always calling people back…for Blacks to be back in the back of the bus, for women to be back in the kitchen, for gays to be in the closet and for immigrants to be on their side of the border.”
Luis, Luis, Luis, my brother in Christ!
What made you think this on Easter Sunday? Why do you think such illogical things? Why did you say it?
Let me explain this about the two big days in Christendom.
Easter, the most important and Christmas, important but not nearly in the same way as Easter, are times that weigh on any pastor or priest. Anyone that preaches on these two days have a lot to be mindful of.
Most important is that that there will be a lot of "Holy day" Christians attending these services. Those that see the inside of a church on only the aforementioned big days. And many people that church goers will bring for the very first time.
A good preacher will stay away from the controversy no matter what side of the political fence they are on. They ruminate on the meaning of the day.
On Easter, it is the culmination of the time from Ash Wednesday to the crucifixion to the rising of Jesus Christ from the dead. It is going from darkness to light.
In fact, at my parish, the rector had an excellent sermon along those lines. And yeah, he is pretty much on the other side than your humble blogger. However, it was very moving to me. Because of the content and how he weaved it into what Easter is all about.
In fairness to the Rev. Leon, I tried to access the sermon on the church's website. Mystically, it is not there as of this writing. Because I would like to hear the context of how he went into a diatribe against traditionalist Christians. All rather wrong and misguided no matter what.
So let me go back to the questions I posed earlier.
What made the Rev. Leon think such thoughts?
I know that the Rev. Leon was the rector of St. John's whenthe personification of eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll himself, former President George W. Bush would attend services. And lets be real. He was a traditionalist Christian. Did he ever preach a sermon that went off the rails in this manner while Mr. Bush was in attendance? Did the Rev. Leon know that the Dear Leader, President Obama, would be in attendance and he wanted to gin it up a bit? Sadly, there are more questions than answers.
But let me offer this.
No traditionalist Christian wants to put Blacks to be back in the back of the bus. In fact and indeed many prominent traditionalist Christians are Black and many prominent Black pastors consider themselves traditionalists.
No traditionalist Christian want to see women to be back in the kitchen. Many of us appreciate and like the leadership roles that women bring to all walks of life. Some women, for a lack of better term, like and want to be housewives. And it is not the same as it was in the time of Leave It To Beaver. This maybe an old wound between High Church Episcopalians and their allies in the emerging Anglican Church of North America. When the EC allowed women to be ordained in the late 1970s, many left because they believed that women should not be in the priesthood. I prayerfully believe that was and is wrong thinking. Maybe, just maybe that is what made the reverend spout that line.
No traditionalist Christian wants to see gays to be in the closet. That ship has sailed. Homosexuals are coming out of the woodwork. And there are many allies. But there are those that draw the line in the sand on the understanding of marriage. That is the issue now. Not whether or not they will "go back in the closet".
No traditionalist wants to see immigrants to be on their side of the border. This is me writing. I want legal immigrants. I do not want to see illegal immigrants get any special dispensation. Period. I know for a fact that my parish's outreach ministry in El Monte, California assists illegal aliens. This is an area of So Cal where it is pretty likely. I don't particularly believe that the church should be asking nor turning them in. But I do want to see the laws that we already have on the books enforced and that any reform hinges on border security first.
The Rev. Leon pretty much threw out a bromide of stereotypes that he put under the label "The religious right". And that is what makes whatever he was trying to preach about on Easter Sunday pointless.
Instead of being thoughtful and mindful of what the meaning of Easter is about, resurrection, it appears that the Rev. Leon, himself a Red Cuban refugee, should know the powerful message of redemption in Jesus Christ.
Now that would make a great Easter sermon.
Or if you prefer Resurrection Sunday.
Now it would probably go unnoticed expect that there was a rather influential family at one of the Easter services.
Wanna guess what family?
Remember, St. John's is across the street from The White House.
If you guessed the first family, the Obama family, give yourself a bright, beautifully colored Easter egg.
So, what did the pastor of the church say that was offensive?
Let me be clear, I am not so much offended because in any given EC, what the Rev. Leon said is pretty moderate for being a pastor in the EC. Here it is:
“You can’t go back, you can’t live in the past. It drives me crazy when the captains of the religious right are always calling people back…for Blacks to be back in the back of the bus, for women to be back in the kitchen, for gays to be in the closet and for immigrants to be on their side of the border.”
Luis, Luis, Luis, my brother in Christ!
What made you think this on Easter Sunday? Why do you think such illogical things? Why did you say it?
Let me explain this about the two big days in Christendom.
Easter, the most important and Christmas, important but not nearly in the same way as Easter, are times that weigh on any pastor or priest. Anyone that preaches on these two days have a lot to be mindful of.
Most important is that that there will be a lot of "Holy day" Christians attending these services. Those that see the inside of a church on only the aforementioned big days. And many people that church goers will bring for the very first time.
A good preacher will stay away from the controversy no matter what side of the political fence they are on. They ruminate on the meaning of the day.
On Easter, it is the culmination of the time from Ash Wednesday to the crucifixion to the rising of Jesus Christ from the dead. It is going from darkness to light.
In fact, at my parish, the rector had an excellent sermon along those lines. And yeah, he is pretty much on the other side than your humble blogger. However, it was very moving to me. Because of the content and how he weaved it into what Easter is all about.
In fairness to the Rev. Leon, I tried to access the sermon on the church's website. Mystically, it is not there as of this writing. Because I would like to hear the context of how he went into a diatribe against traditionalist Christians. All rather wrong and misguided no matter what.
So let me go back to the questions I posed earlier.
What made the Rev. Leon think such thoughts?
I know that the Rev. Leon was the rector of St. John's when
But let me offer this.
No traditionalist Christian wants to put Blacks to be back in the back of the bus. In fact and indeed many prominent traditionalist Christians are Black and many prominent Black pastors consider themselves traditionalists.
No traditionalist Christian want to see women to be back in the kitchen. Many of us appreciate and like the leadership roles that women bring to all walks of life. Some women, for a lack of better term, like and want to be housewives. And it is not the same as it was in the time of Leave It To Beaver. This maybe an old wound between High Church Episcopalians and their allies in the emerging Anglican Church of North America. When the EC allowed women to be ordained in the late 1970s, many left because they believed that women should not be in the priesthood. I prayerfully believe that was and is wrong thinking. Maybe, just maybe that is what made the reverend spout that line.
No traditionalist Christian wants to see gays to be in the closet. That ship has sailed. Homosexuals are coming out of the woodwork. And there are many allies. But there are those that draw the line in the sand on the understanding of marriage. That is the issue now. Not whether or not they will "go back in the closet".
No traditionalist wants to see immigrants to be on their side of the border. This is me writing. I want legal immigrants. I do not want to see illegal immigrants get any special dispensation. Period. I know for a fact that my parish's outreach ministry in El Monte, California assists illegal aliens. This is an area of So Cal where it is pretty likely. I don't particularly believe that the church should be asking nor turning them in. But I do want to see the laws that we already have on the books enforced and that any reform hinges on border security first.
The Rev. Leon pretty much threw out a bromide of stereotypes that he put under the label "The religious right". And that is what makes whatever he was trying to preach about on Easter Sunday pointless.
Instead of being thoughtful and mindful of what the meaning of Easter is about, resurrection, it appears that the Rev. Leon, himself a Red Cuban refugee, should know the powerful message of redemption in Jesus Christ.
Now that would make a great Easter sermon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)