Fox News "war games" - the coming civil war
To play the home version of war games and idiotic punditry, watch this video clip of Glenn Beck's "War Room" before reading the description of it and follow-up comments, and consider when this episode likely aired. (By no means should you ignore the commentary, however, as Glenn Greenwald provides an excellent explanation of what exactly a "bubba" militia is and why we should be so concerned at the idea.)
Give up?
February 22, 2009. That's right, kids -- less than a week ago, and just over a month into President Obama's administration.
Now humour me, and if you haven't already, read Greenwald's commentary.
I have to admit, I'm partially amused in a sick and morbid fashion that right-wing commentary has already degraded itself to foreshadowings of civil uprisings and revolts against the state of the world. One of his commentators estimates that income tax in the higher brackets (never mind the brackets where most viewers of FOX News fall) by 2014 could be as high as 95 per cent. Of course, the response to this sort of economic upheaval and the continuing problems of the world will lead the citizenry to violent action.
With 3:40 left in the video clip after the jump, pay attention to Glenn Beck's statement that the government has "betrayed the Constitution" -- but keep in mind that this clip leaves the ground and launches itself into the stratosphere of wacko-paranoic thought within the first 10 seconds. In fact...any rational person should pause at the idea that this or any edition of the "War Room" is focused on "war games" that suggest the imminent arrival of civil war.
Another sound bite: "tyranny of incompetence", approximately 2:30 remaining.
And this second sound bite brings me back into cold hard reality, where I am no longer amused but simply disgusted. Where were these dire predictions of civil war throughout the last five to six years of the W. administration? As Greenwald points out, the cult of the "bubba militia" turned a collective blind-eye to the human rights violations and indignities carried out by their champion after scoffing at the less offensive (and far less illegal) attempts of his predecessor. Greenwald writes:
In sum, they dressed up in warrior clothing to fight against Bill Clinton's supposed tyranny, and then underwent a major costume change on January 20, 2001, thereafter dressing up in cheerleader costumes to glorify George Bush's far more extreme acquisitions of federal power.
What this means, boys and girls, is hypocrisy. It is hypocrisy of the lowest order to not only apply selective indignation to the actions of our leaders, but to suggest that after one month (does this need any more emphasis?) the American people have suffered so terribly under President Obama (who, dare I point out, is not the cause of any of what is happening now) that by 2014 -- two years after he comes up for reelection -- the people of this country will fight to "take back their government".
Look. When W. took his imaginary mandate and created a clusterfuck of a national position for us...when his administration facilitated many of the very measures that leave us mired in the economic bog now...the American people did not rise up and revolt against the government machine. Hell, if that was the case then W. should have never won reelection in 2004 (which is the case regardless, but I digress). You didn't see left-leaning commentary suggest that the United States would be heading for a civil war, even in the last two years of the administration when it seems that people finally started to wise up.
What happened? People demanded change through the government. That's right, and allow me to repeat it: people used the government to get the change they sought. The change we sought and continue to fight for today. We continue to fight because of people like Glenn Beck and other faithful devotees of the "bubba militia", who are not concerned for what is right, only that they win their war games.
Rants and Raves home
27 February 2009
19 February 2009
Now Offering: Limited-Edition Vows!
Indiana Woman Said "I Do" 23 Times
Just...no.
Thanks to Drew for posting the original link to this story. If you read, you'll find that this sexagenarian is the very same woman listed in the Guinness Book of World Records for being married more than any other person on the planet. It would likely take three lines to list all of the last names she's held...if she could remember them in order, that is. Which she can't.
I'm intrigued at the comment she makes at the end of the article, about doing it again -- it "gets lonely." Is it just me, or does she seem to suffer from fear of ever being alone?? I certainly hope someone stands outside the loo for her or else she may have a panic attack.
The more important issue, however, is what a comment a person like this makes on the institution of marriage in general. After all, we're talking about a woman whose longest marriage lasted nine years and whose shortest lasted -- I believe -- sixteen hours. This woman has Britney Spears beat in the arena of pointless wastes of time...
As far as religious fundamentalists who flock to protect the "sanctity of marriage" from same-sex couples are concerned, this should give them greater pause than wondering if there will be two tuxes or two gowns at the end of the proverbial aisle. How fair is it that one woman (and her male counterpart in the GBR, whom she married at one point) should be allowed to marry as many times as they have while there are vast numbers of people who are struggling for the chance for one marriage to the person they truly love?
If you continue past the article to the comments section you'll notice that a few readers consider same-sex marriage to be a selfish act as well as a sin. By that standard, this woman should have been stopped from marrying once she passed the age of fertility. Certainly none of her subsequent marriages will result in offspring, therefore the idea of her marrying is utterly selfish and not sanctioned by the God of the Bible. There is no discussion of this, however, which underscores the hypocrisy of the argument. (Rants regarding this subject to follow)
There is no justification for this sort of behaviour. Lonely? Buy a dog. Preventing this woman from lying through her vows for the 24th time will be one step toward restoring the sanctity of marriage. The next, of course...is extending the right to those who will respect the institution.
Rants and Raves home
Just...no.
Thanks to Drew for posting the original link to this story. If you read, you'll find that this sexagenarian is the very same woman listed in the Guinness Book of World Records for being married more than any other person on the planet. It would likely take three lines to list all of the last names she's held...if she could remember them in order, that is. Which she can't.
I'm intrigued at the comment she makes at the end of the article, about doing it again -- it "gets lonely." Is it just me, or does she seem to suffer from fear of ever being alone?? I certainly hope someone stands outside the loo for her or else she may have a panic attack.
The more important issue, however, is what a comment a person like this makes on the institution of marriage in general. After all, we're talking about a woman whose longest marriage lasted nine years and whose shortest lasted -- I believe -- sixteen hours. This woman has Britney Spears beat in the arena of pointless wastes of time...
As far as religious fundamentalists who flock to protect the "sanctity of marriage" from same-sex couples are concerned, this should give them greater pause than wondering if there will be two tuxes or two gowns at the end of the proverbial aisle. How fair is it that one woman (and her male counterpart in the GBR, whom she married at one point) should be allowed to marry as many times as they have while there are vast numbers of people who are struggling for the chance for one marriage to the person they truly love?
If you continue past the article to the comments section you'll notice that a few readers consider same-sex marriage to be a selfish act as well as a sin. By that standard, this woman should have been stopped from marrying once she passed the age of fertility. Certainly none of her subsequent marriages will result in offspring, therefore the idea of her marrying is utterly selfish and not sanctioned by the God of the Bible. There is no discussion of this, however, which underscores the hypocrisy of the argument. (Rants regarding this subject to follow)
There is no justification for this sort of behaviour. Lonely? Buy a dog. Preventing this woman from lying through her vows for the 24th time will be one step toward restoring the sanctity of marriage. The next, of course...is extending the right to those who will respect the institution.
Rants and Raves home
Paying it Forward
Family of 5 weathers economy with 7 housemates
I spent the better part of my teenage years in a dual household. Four adults, four kids, five rooms and two bathrooms. Shared expenses, extra-large meals. Making it work together when alone we would have failed. It wasn't paradise, and likely not what any of the adults had in mind when they imagined building a life. There were squabbles, and turf battles over who could discipline whom or whose turn it was to do the dishes.
But that made us stronger, and contributed to our ability to collaborate for the greater good. If you look closely, you can see it in each of us.
That's what really touched me about the Frankel family and the ways in which they have expanded to pay it forward at a time when such generosity is desperately needed and difficult to find. Austin Chu calls the Frankels "an example of America at its best", and he is so right. We all have worries about tomorrow, about making ends meet, about caring for ourselves. How much more rewarding, then, to turn survival into a team effort and come out so far ahead that mere survival turns into thriving.
Today is not the day that all news will be good. There is so much wrong with our society, or economy -- our world -- that it will be a long time before the headlines scream positivity. That makes it all the more important to embrace these fleeting examples of real hope for our future. These are the lessons that we should tuck away and pull out to teach the younger generations the importance of connecting with others. Apathy is a disease, but it can be cured.
Rants and Raves home
I spent the better part of my teenage years in a dual household. Four adults, four kids, five rooms and two bathrooms. Shared expenses, extra-large meals. Making it work together when alone we would have failed. It wasn't paradise, and likely not what any of the adults had in mind when they imagined building a life. There were squabbles, and turf battles over who could discipline whom or whose turn it was to do the dishes.
But that made us stronger, and contributed to our ability to collaborate for the greater good. If you look closely, you can see it in each of us.
That's what really touched me about the Frankel family and the ways in which they have expanded to pay it forward at a time when such generosity is desperately needed and difficult to find. Austin Chu calls the Frankels "an example of America at its best", and he is so right. We all have worries about tomorrow, about making ends meet, about caring for ourselves. How much more rewarding, then, to turn survival into a team effort and come out so far ahead that mere survival turns into thriving.
Today is not the day that all news will be good. There is so much wrong with our society, or economy -- our world -- that it will be a long time before the headlines scream positivity. That makes it all the more important to embrace these fleeting examples of real hope for our future. These are the lessons that we should tuck away and pull out to teach the younger generations the importance of connecting with others. Apathy is a disease, but it can be cured.
Rants and Raves home
17 February 2009
Babies and Death Threats
PR exec: Death threats forced firm to drop octuplet mom
I, like many of my friends (shout-out to Jake) am sick to death of hearing about Nadya Suleman, the mother of now fourteen babies, including her recently-delivered octuplets. I am tired of reading about how she underwent in vitro fertilization, ad nauseum...but I couldn't pass up this article.
Death threats? Really? I think some people have too much time on their hands.
This is a woman who is living off of disability and the generosity of her mother, who already had six children and came out with eight more. Now, I am no IVF expert but I realize that it is not a common occurrence for every embryo planted during a procedure to make it to term. So planting eight embryos and getting eight babies is a little bit of a shock.
That being said, however, what kind of a person in that situation -- unemployed/disabled, already raising six children, living in cramped quarters and limited income -- willingly attempts to become impregnated again?? The messages received by Suleman's former PR firm may be harsh and inappropriate, but they underscore every complaint about social welfare programs in our country.
Now, I'm not going to go into a treatise on my political beliefs (for once, yeah I know). I am, though, a social liberal who sees the benefit of social programs to help level the playing field for others. I have benefited first-hand from welfare, tax breaks and donations from places like the Salvation Army, and it's unlikely that I would be where I am today without those things. I am a recipient of federal financial aid, I went to Head Start...and so on...
But I also have first-hand experience with people who exploit the federal welfare system, who drain the money paid in by working taxpayers so they can continue a leisurely lifestyle while we -- you and I -- raise their unplanned children. For every person who uses the welfare system appropriately, who uses the opportunity to better their circumstances and get off of welfare for good, there is a handful of people who find every loophole in order to suck the government teat until it runs dry.
Nadya Suleman is probably a very nice person. She is supposedly going to school to better her circumstances, and she should be commended for that. But shame on her for taking advantage of an already strained system in a tough economy, and in such a way that puts the possibility of accident out of the question. As a taxpayer, the only other exposure I think Suleman should get is a televised apology to the American people for highway robbery, and for undermining our faith in a social welfare system that used to work.
Rants and Raves home
I, like many of my friends (shout-out to Jake) am sick to death of hearing about Nadya Suleman, the mother of now fourteen babies, including her recently-delivered octuplets. I am tired of reading about how she underwent in vitro fertilization, ad nauseum...but I couldn't pass up this article.
Death threats? Really? I think some people have too much time on their hands.
This is a woman who is living off of disability and the generosity of her mother, who already had six children and came out with eight more. Now, I am no IVF expert but I realize that it is not a common occurrence for every embryo planted during a procedure to make it to term. So planting eight embryos and getting eight babies is a little bit of a shock.
That being said, however, what kind of a person in that situation -- unemployed/disabled, already raising six children, living in cramped quarters and limited income -- willingly attempts to become impregnated again?? The messages received by Suleman's former PR firm may be harsh and inappropriate, but they underscore every complaint about social welfare programs in our country.
Now, I'm not going to go into a treatise on my political beliefs (for once, yeah I know). I am, though, a social liberal who sees the benefit of social programs to help level the playing field for others. I have benefited first-hand from welfare, tax breaks and donations from places like the Salvation Army, and it's unlikely that I would be where I am today without those things. I am a recipient of federal financial aid, I went to Head Start...and so on...
But I also have first-hand experience with people who exploit the federal welfare system, who drain the money paid in by working taxpayers so they can continue a leisurely lifestyle while we -- you and I -- raise their unplanned children. For every person who uses the welfare system appropriately, who uses the opportunity to better their circumstances and get off of welfare for good, there is a handful of people who find every loophole in order to suck the government teat until it runs dry.
Nadya Suleman is probably a very nice person. She is supposedly going to school to better her circumstances, and she should be commended for that. But shame on her for taking advantage of an already strained system in a tough economy, and in such a way that puts the possibility of accident out of the question. As a taxpayer, the only other exposure I think Suleman should get is a televised apology to the American people for highway robbery, and for undermining our faith in a social welfare system that used to work.
Rants and Raves home
Promise Rings
I was driving back from a lunch date and Ryan Seacrest was on the radio (don't judge) talking about promise rings. The guy he had on with him (I think his name was Brad...) was going on about how he cares about his girlfriend and wants to get her a ring to show her, blah blah blah, but he doesn't want to propose because, well, they've only been dating for six months.
First, six months is a reasonable period of time to date before proposing marriage -- if you're ready.
Second, and the point of this little rant, if you aren't ready to propose then screw the promise ring. What is a promise ring anyway but a leash and collar? (Thanks to Ellen for that) It's one more consumer-driven and pathetic excuse to go rack up another bill for hundreds of dollars in the hopes of placating your girlfriend for a few more months while you decide what to do with her.
I like rings. I think they're pretty, and I always wear one or two. That being said, what I don't like is having to explain to someone that the ring I got for Christmas or my birthday from a sweet significant other is not -- let me say that again, not -- a precursor to The Ring. This happened to me two Christmases ago, when my then-boyfriend's parents began the wedding speculation because he made the decision to buy me a pretty ring instead of a necklace or bracelet or hell, a good book about botany or something. Talk about your awkward situations.
In our society it is no longer enough in a relationship to quietly date, then decide to marry. There has to be a milestone for everything: "Oh my GOD, we've been together for two whole months!" "Happy six month anniversary!" And on, and on. There is a commemoration for each step in a process that really has but a few -- you date, with or without a declaration of exclusivity; you get engaged; you marry.
Now, it looks something like this:
-Talking (flirting, meeting for drinks, maybe hooking up)
-Dating (you see each other a few times a week, but you're open to dating others)
-Relationship (yay, you're a couple. Gag me.)
-"Getting serious" (at this ambiguous point you may begin discussing marriage, but more likely you decide to move into a house or apartment together. You may have a kid. This stage has no set time limit, and is the first appearance of the dreaded "promise ring".)
-Engagement (if you've managed to not drown in the complexity of the preceding four stages, you may just decide that it's worth it to commit to this person -- for a few years if not for life. This is not happily ever after, though, but a stopping point before the vows. This is where you should be getting a ring.)
-Marriage (I'm not even getting into it here)
-The rest of your life (including but not limited to children, separation, divorce, mid-life crises, job changes, medical scares and the occasional week-long vacation)
All I'm saying is, what's the point?
First, six months is a reasonable period of time to date before proposing marriage -- if you're ready.
Second, and the point of this little rant, if you aren't ready to propose then screw the promise ring. What is a promise ring anyway but a leash and collar? (Thanks to Ellen for that) It's one more consumer-driven and pathetic excuse to go rack up another bill for hundreds of dollars in the hopes of placating your girlfriend for a few more months while you decide what to do with her.
I like rings. I think they're pretty, and I always wear one or two. That being said, what I don't like is having to explain to someone that the ring I got for Christmas or my birthday from a sweet significant other is not -- let me say that again, not -- a precursor to The Ring. This happened to me two Christmases ago, when my then-boyfriend's parents began the wedding speculation because he made the decision to buy me a pretty ring instead of a necklace or bracelet or hell, a good book about botany or something. Talk about your awkward situations.
In our society it is no longer enough in a relationship to quietly date, then decide to marry. There has to be a milestone for everything: "Oh my GOD, we've been together for two whole months!" "Happy six month anniversary!" And on, and on. There is a commemoration for each step in a process that really has but a few -- you date, with or without a declaration of exclusivity; you get engaged; you marry.
Now, it looks something like this:
-Talking (flirting, meeting for drinks, maybe hooking up)
-Dating (you see each other a few times a week, but you're open to dating others)
-Relationship (yay, you're a couple. Gag me.)
-"Getting serious" (at this ambiguous point you may begin discussing marriage, but more likely you decide to move into a house or apartment together. You may have a kid. This stage has no set time limit, and is the first appearance of the dreaded "promise ring".)
-Engagement (if you've managed to not drown in the complexity of the preceding four stages, you may just decide that it's worth it to commit to this person -- for a few years if not for life. This is not happily ever after, though, but a stopping point before the vows. This is where you should be getting a ring.)
-Marriage (I'm not even getting into it here)
-The rest of your life (including but not limited to children, separation, divorce, mid-life crises, job changes, medical scares and the occasional week-long vacation)
All I'm saying is, what's the point?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
