Liberals lately have been blaming America for the drug and violence problems on the border. It seems that this is another case of liberal “American Guilt” where we must feel bad and blame ourselves for the world’s problems. Their thought process… If only we didn’t have a demand for drugs, then Mexicans wouldn’t kill innocent people to get them here.
Well, following the logic that if we remove the temptation to break the law, we will not only prevent the crime from happening, we will stop the true source of the problem. So if we agree that rape is a problem and we want to solve it by the liberal logic method applied to drug violence, we need to remove the temptation to break the law and lay the blame on the tempation. So be it. From now on, all attractive women are now banned. If we get rid of attractive women, rapists may be less likely to want to rape. And since it is never the person that breaks the law’s fault, we will have properly banned the source of the rape problem.
Memo to Commrades: You will no longer use the term “Global War on Terror” for it sounds too scary. From now on, you must use “Overseas Contingency Operation”. That is all.
According to a report from the Center for Immigration Studies based on 2008 Census Bureau Data, the number of illegal immigrants has declined by 11%.
“Monthly data collected by the Census Bureau through May 2008 shows a significant decline in the number of less-educated, young Hispanic immigrants in the country.”
What defines “less-educated”? Could the free education that we are providing illegal immigrants actually count as making them more educated? Are they leaving or are they just studying themselves out of the “less-educated” class?
The report points to the tougher law enforcement strategies as a source for the decline. I agree, but I am not quite sure what declined. Since the Census Bureau collects data on a volunteer basis, how can we trust the results? With tougher law enforcement, could it be that illegal immigrants are not so cavalier about announcing their illegal status?
Just because 11% less people admitted to being an illegal immigrant does not mean that the number of illegal immigrants has declined at all.
Police recorded 22,151 offences involving knives last year in England and Wales, including grievous bodily harm, attempted murder, woundings and robbery.
According to Michelle Obama, Americans have too much and they need to get ready to give some of it up! Am I talking about America’s overweight problem? Nope, I am talking about the liberal desire to redistribute wealth. Here is what Michelle Obama said yesterday:
“The truth is most Americans don’t want much. Folks don’t want the whole pie. Most Americans feel blessed to thrive a little bit.”
“In order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.”
This just shows how out of touch with America the Obama campaign is. According to her, she hasn’t ever been proud of America until her husband has a chance at being president. She thinks that the American dream doesn’t exist and instead we would rather give up what we worked hard for so that someone else can have it.
I don’t want someone with this view on the world leading me!
Glenn Beck brought up a great point, America is a bakery! You can make all the pie you want! Don’t take mine.
Wow. Check out Absolut’s new ad. I think the “Conocer Es No Excederse” message at the bottom left is hilarious. Literally, “Knowing is not exceeding”, it is their way of saying, know your limits. Too funny.
You are an individual.You owe no allegiances to those other than whom you choose.You are a creature motivated by free will.As such, your freedom allows you to align yourself with any group or entity that you wish. If this is true, when you are a member of a group or a participant in some organization, is there anything owed to the entity to which you belong? If you benefit from your alignment, are you indebted to the source of some benefit you receive? Owed. Debt. These are words commonly used to describe an obligation to something. If you are truly free, to what can an obligation be owed?
Well, you are not truly free.Your freedom is not that of absence of obligation, but rather your freedom is in your ability to choose with what you would like to be aligned. Some of these associations are by choice and some are associations of circumstance.If the associations are based on a system in which some benefit is received or need is met, some allegiance is owed on your behalf. Although there are many things and groups that you may make use of and participate in, you are not obligated to any of them near as much as you are to your political community.This is based not only on the merits of the political community as compared to the other obligations in your life, but also to the un-elective membership within a political community and the ability for the political community to serve the other needs in your life.
A political community is not any one government in particular.Instead, it is any governing body over a group of people.Your greatest obligation is not specifically to democracy or communism, but rather the larger political community that establishes these governments.Those that are not convinced that their greatest obligation is in fact political community will try to discredit their obligation based on specific examples of government failure and corruption.The political community is what exists that allows those governments to be changed.The political community is the alliance with other like minded people that establishes ideals under which any government, good or bad, is formed.
Your primary obligation to the political community is not natural.Other lesser obligations in your life provide more of a primary role in your existence. It is true that you need many things in order to survive and much benefit is derived from different sources in your life.This may make these sources more important for your survival, or even existence, but it does not establish greater obligation to that source over that to your political community.
Based merely on a level of seniority of primary need, your obligation to nature should be greatest.Nature was here first, without it we couldn’t survive.After all, at the basest level, any event or object can be traced back to nature.Nothing we have on this planet came from anywhere other than this planet.All items, and therefore all possessions and food came either directly from nature or some manipulation of chemicals and elements from nature.An atom from the most dynamic, new, and synthetic compound cannot be created outside the manipulation of another atom.Since an atom is a basic building block that cannot itself be created, these atoms from all compounds on Earth, must have existed before somehow in some other form.Any tangible item, whether an object providing some use or a human in some organization has come from nature at the basest level.
Continuing along with a ranking of obligation based on origin, your individual existence would not be possible without your family.When viewed only as a self centered interest, the family is quite possibly the greatest obligation an individual can have.If nature is where it all started, the family picked up where nature let off.Our immediate tie to all things in life, even on an atomic level, is directly through our parents.Their DNA created and shaped us into what we are.No decision we make could be made without the life given to us by our parents.No benefit can be received or used by any entity in life without the life given to us by our family.And no sharing of any life lessons or social benefit can be passed on better than through children.Basically, anything received or given cannot be done or shared without your existence provided by your family.
This sharing of benefits between one another in life afforded to us by nature and our families leads to a distinct quality, humanity.This quality as well as everything else comes from nature first and family second.But, based strictly on the end product of human purpose, our greatest obligation is humanity.Humanity is what allows these things given to us by nature and provided to us by virtue of our families to be protected and shared.If things cannot exist without nature and they cannot be shared without families, there is no use without humanity.Even though you are an individual, you are not able to benefit from any togetherness or resource to those in need without humanity.
Here is the problem, your primary obligation in life is not based merely on a level of seniority, viewed only as a self centered interest, or based strictly on the end product of human purpose.Your primary obligation is owed based on all of these principles put together.Recognizing that your greatest obligation is to your political community does not conflict with these other obligations.Rather, it reinforces and supports them.These obligations, and perhaps others, are so important in your life, political community is the only entity to which your obligation will provide protection.
A direct comparison of your obligations will show their respective merits.Testing the many obligations in your life will reveal that only your greatest obligation will hold you accountable to it. Test nature, test your family, test humanity, test your political community and see which reigns superior.
Take any obligation you may feel towards nature and test it.It is from nature where all things come.But, once nature has created all of the elements on this earth, it does not remove them.Water must not be conserved or it will be lost, it will actually only be harder to find.The Hydrogen and Oxygen molecules in “wasted” water do not disappear.They actually are only moved to different locations, moisture in our bodies, vapor in the air, water in the ground.All of the water that is on the Earth has been on the Earth and will be on the Earth.Removing any sense of water conservation will have no effect in preventing the loss of water since water cannot be lost.Pollute without concern, waste water, cut down trees, and pour oil on the ground.After all, pollution is made up of molecules that existed on this Earth long before cars, water is not created or destroyed, trees will decay on their own, and oil came from the ground in the first place.Nature’s benefit to us is in its ability to provide all that we have.Removing your obligation to nature does not remove the creations of nature, it may make access to them more difficult, but they still exist.
Take any obligation you feel towards your family and test it.Without your family you would not exist, but the importance of family to your existence is over once you are raised.Yes, your family serves a purpose, but as an adult the need for your family has been met.You can easily disown your family.You can have a legal separation from your relatives.Once such a separation takes place, once all need for obligation is removed, the argument for obligation to your family dissolves.When dealing in the present, without your family, you would still be here.Your parents provided their greatest service as a stepping stone to your life.Your obligation to them, although still present, is not your greatest since the basis for the obligation, your existence, can be maintained without your parents.
Take any obligation you feel towards humanity and test it.Humanity protects us and brings us together.Remove any obligation you feel towards humanity and only those that require humanity, not those who are obligated to it will suffer.Someone in a third world country that benefits from the United States’ donations is not obligated to humanity, they rely on it.Those of us that create our obligation to humanity do not need it to survive or to exist and therefore will not be affected by the lack of participation in it.Stop donating and humanity will not lash back.Humanity performs out of compassion, not obligation.
Take any obligation you feel towards your political community and test it.Political community provides the means for all other obligations in life to perform.Without the protection of political community other obligations, and more important, benefits from other obligations are not useful.Break the law and see what happens.Extract yourself from the political community surrounding you and experience your inability to function.Remove your obligation to your political community while trying to maintain the benefits provided by it and you will lose your freedom.Your greatest obligation is to the political community since it is the only one that cannot be removed without more than an inconvenience.
There is a significant difference between an obligation in your life providing a service or benefit and providing a necessary function.Benefits provided by most obligations are electively received.Benefits provided by your political community are given and used whether or not you chose specifically to receive them as long as you are a part of a political community.Using the trees nature provides for your shelter is a benefit.Using a political community to ensure that the trees will be there for you to use is a necessary function.Needing something for survival is important.Simply needing something though, does not require obligation to the source.Obligation is greatest to the source of something which provides an unbalanced large portion of benefits and protections when compared to requirements such as a political community.
Some of these benefits provided by a political community may include protection by a military force, police, and fire, education, health, roads and public utilities, establishment and maintenance of an economy, and maintaining order.Your political community has enacted and enforced wildlife protection laws to protect nature.Your political community has provided social services and recognized unions within the family.Your political community has provided welfare and provided foreign aid in order to promote humanity.Your political community has not only taken care of you, is has also taken care of all of your other obligations.By living within the political community, by choosing to accept the care your political community has given you, you are now indebted to it.
You have, perhaps unknowingly, consented to your obligation to your political community.But ignorance or knowledge of your consent is not how your obligation is defined.You obligation exists by the same means your benefits have been received, it is automatic.This care that has been provided to you by the political community is ever continuing and is unable to be given back.How do your return your education?How do you refuse the protection that has already been provided to you?Although you can remove yourself from the economic system, your parents and grandparents survived on that very system for their survival.A political community does not ask for your choice in participation, rather it provides care to all who do not remove themselves from it.
People can choose to remove themselves from a political community by simply relocating to the control of another or by refusing to abide by the standards within a political community.The latter of these two options only helps strengthen and define the importance of your obligation to the political community.If an individual refuses to follow the rules of the government established by the political community, they will be held accountable.If anyone lashes out against the political community from within and threatens others within the political community, it will bring them to justice.The political community is not passive; it is interested in self preservation.It is established on ideals that do not leave room for opinion and is constantly adapting.If something is done wrong to the family, nature, or humanity is trampled, the political community is the entity which brings justice, not the respective abused entities.
Try to protect the environment without your political community.It cannot be done.The political community is required in order to influence the actions of others.The political community will enact the necessary laws to protect the environment.The political community rations the resources of the environment so that the resources last.Individuals are self motivated, someone caring for themselves or their family can horde a natural resource from others if the government does not prevent them.
Try to protect your family without your political community.It cannot be done.The political community is required to protect your family when you are gone.You must sleep, you must work. You cannot watch your family all of the time.Whether you wanted them to or not, police officers and soldiers have worked hard to ensure that as many people that would do you or your family harm are removed from society.
Try to promote humanity without your political community.It cannot be done.The economy and means provided by your political community are required in order to affect change.The very ability to donate money to someone in need requires a political community to print the money and establish an economy to give the money worth. The military within a government is required in order to prevent injustices to humanity elsewhere.
These other obligations are important in your life.Things that are important to you require safeguarding and your political community is necessary to protect them.Go through life pretending that your greatest obligation is not to your political community.Tell yourself that your greatest obligation is to nature or humanity.Your political community will still allow you the voice to express your views and the public arena in which you work.Your freedoms, your money, your access to food, the very audience to which you appeal are all provided by your political community.
Volunteer soldiers are the perfect example of primary obligation to your political community.They are the ones that understand they cannot protect their family all of the time, they cannot protect ones freedom to practice religion, they cannot protect freedom of speech, they need the government to help.The soldier not only pays back the political community with their service, they are in fact also a functional arm that provides service to others within the political community. Charles M. Province summed this up when he wrote, “It is the Soldier, not the minister who has given us freedom of religion.It is the Soldier, not the reporter who has given us freedom of the press.It is the Soldier, not the poet who has given us freedom of speech.It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer who has given us freedom to protest.It is the Soldier, not the lawyer who has given us the right to a fair trial.It is the Soldier, not the politician who has given us the right to vote.It is the Soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag.”His point is that soldiers, not as individuals but as vehicles for your political community’s care and protection, provide these things we enjoy.
You have received, and continue to receive, protection and care from your political community.Your very existence under the political community requires your allegiance to it. This obligation to your political community is not optional just as your political community’s commitment to protecting and providing for you is not optional.
“The presidency basks in the limelight of publicity at all times while congress waits in the shadows…the television age has permanently altered the balance of political power, making the president dominant and the legislature inferior.”- Doris Graber
Significant differences exist between the amount of coverage the media dedicates to covering news about the President of the United States and news about our Congress.The difference in coverage can be seen at the national and local state and city level.The national level rarely even mentions congress, and while the local news does allot some time for congressional news, it too is made up predominately of political news that focuses solely on the President and his staff.This choice by the media to not cover much of what Congress does is not by accident.The media chooses to cover other aspects of our political system since the President is a better media target, daily aspects of the Congress are boring, and Congress is not concerned with acting in a way that interests the National audience.
The President of the United States is a much better media target than the members of congress individually or as a whole.The television camera not only has a much easier time focusing on one familiar face, the audience can relate to and follow the story of one man easier than many.The media assumes that the average American affected by the media will not be able to keep track of 535 members of Congress, let alone care.This is assumption by the media is correct.
Now, I am not insinuating that the American people do not or should not care about the government’s inner workings.It is vitally important that the citizens of a state understand the legislative process and keep up to date on its progress.In 1835 Alexis Detoqueville wrote, “The American learns to know the laws by participating in the act of legislation; and he takes a lesson in the forms of government from governing.The great work of society is ever going on beneath his eyes…” (Dennis 15).Important as it may be, when the story of legislative process is told through the media, it is difficult to follow and grasp the entire process.When Americans are ever subject to receiving their news in small segments of information separated by pundit’s opinions and flashy commercials, it is quite difficult to be a part of the process.Detoqueville’s quote explains that Americans understand the legislative process by participating in it.It is very difficult to participate in a topic when only small and flashy bits, handpicked by editors, are shown to you.
It is easy to see that the consumers of the media’s product are easily drawn to and interested in a branch of government lead by one person rather than a branch run by 535.This difference between the popularity of media coverage is not limited to the American public’s ability to focus on one person.This difference also has to do with the media’s draw towards popularity issues within a branch driven by national popularity and the ability to blame or reward one person for the results of the branch.
The Nation as a whole can easily find interest in a popularity race that involves everyone within the Nation. The Executive branch displays this popularity based drive within the media best during elections.When journalists report on Presidential election races, they often focus more on a horse race style of who is in the lead rather than cover important issues about the candidates themselves (Arnold 177).Reporting on the candidate’s stance and record on political issues runs the risk of reporting to an audience ignorant on the issues at hand.If the audience doesn’t understand the significance of the respective stances, they are not likely to watch or read a report on them.
When an organization is lead by one person that person is ultimately responsible for everything the organization does or fails to do.When good news, or more important to media, bad news breaks, the media loves to have a face to show along with the story.Whether the legislative branch is success or a failure, it is difficult to hold 535 people accountable.Even if the media wanted to cover all 535 members, they couldn’t.The typical representative doesn’t even appear once a year on the National News Networks, USA Today, or Newsweek (Cook 60).
The group that makes up the legislative branch may benefit from appearing as a mass and therefore reducing blame on any one person, but it can also hurt the branch as well.Without one person able to step up and speak for the legislative branch, it suffers in National opinion.When the public sees many leaders in the legislative branch such as the Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader, Senate Minority Leader, and Committee Leaders, it is difficult for the American public to get an accurate opinion on Congress if a positive or negative story is reported on about just one of these leaders.
Although there is not one voice for Congress, some exceptions have existed.The media has opted to cover legislators that present sound bites and news clips that can be covered in an entertaining way.Certain members that stand out of the crowd, such as Newt Gingrich and Ted Kennedy, have become household names (Arnold 2).Newt Gingrich specifically chose to cater to the media so that changes could be made in Congress.Gingrich decided to appeal to the American people by adopting an attitude that could be easily covered by the media.It required Gingrich to filter through his plans and pull out what he thought made for a newsworthy story so that he would get the coverage he wanted. In USA Today, Newt Gingrich said, “Part of the reason I use strong language is because you all will pick it up… You convince your colleagues to cover me being calm, and I’ll be calm.You guys want to cover nine seconds, I’ll give you nine seconds, because that is the competitive requirement… I’ve simply tried to learn my half of your business”.
Gingrich was right, the media is a business. And as such requires ratings based on consumer loyalty and attention.If, when flipping through the television channels of the pages of a newspaper, the common American sees a picture and a quote of some unknown State Representative, they are likely to move on.If that same average American, however, is passing through the same media sources and finds a familiar picture and quote from the President of the United States, they are more likely to pause and show interest.The media relies on drawing customers from a large pool of news sources.If they can gain viewers by appealing to American’s comfort in familiarity, their business succeeds.Any media outlet that thrives strictly on providing an accurate look into the legislative process instead of flashy headlines and pictures will fail.Just how often is CSPAN watched compared to a major news outlet?Well, the world will never know as CSPAN is not subject to the same telecommunication ratings as other channels.
Even if Congress decided to work on making their daily activities more exciting, the sheer mass of projects would be overwhelming to most consumers.In the legislative branch, there are many activities going on all at once.No one media outlet out there could cover all of those activities, let alone cover them in such a way that was entertaining.So, the choice of what topics are newsworthy would be left back in the hands of the editor.
The decision of what is newsworthy by the editor is a great influence on what information the American people receive.This information sways public opinion, and in some cases, creates it.Once one network or news agency decides something is news, the other networks need to catch up.After all, no network wants to be the only one that didn’t cover a story.In the late 80’s, evening news broadcasters paid attention to what the respected newspapers deemed newsworthy.One main network anchorman explained, “You start out with an idea of the story of the day… by looking at the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, USA Today.I guess I read five papers every day.I get the Post at home and it’s the first thing I see, so it shapes my impression of what might be the flow of news today.I look at how we might move the story farther down the road, beyond where it’s already been” (Cook 48).
One event labeled as news influences another, and only the sensational topics are covered.This keeps the news short and interesting to the consumer, but it also promotes sensationalism among politicians that want to be seen.Zell Miller’s impassioned speech against Senator Kerry during the 2004 Presidential campaign gained lots attention.Imagine the opinions of other Senators that were upstaged by Zel Miller’s.Imagine how many decisions are made by the legislative branch during a Presidential race that are not covered.The American people may care that they are not getting the full story, but Congress is not.
The fact that floor speeches, committee meetings, or debating the details of bills are not exciting is not of much consequence to Senators.The legislative process is, by design, time consuming, arduous, and unglamorous.This intentional design prevents rapid change when needed, but it also prevents a bad idea from being passed without being checked.A much smoother process for enacting new legislation would involvea system where an elite could simply make a decision for America and change policy immediately.Although much faster, a system such as described would be prone to corruption. This corruption is prevented in our government by splitting the law making body into two houses of dissimilar representation of America.A smooth talking Senator can affect change, but not without the review of his peers and Representatives of the American people.That review process does not appeal to the American public when watching television… it is too long and too hard to follow.
Even if there was a demand from an interested American to follow this process, it would be difficult given the media’s preferred medium.It has already been established that the majority of Americans get their news from and the media prefers to deliver the news via television.A great deal of patience and attention would be required by a interested public in order to follow this process on the media.Breaking a process that is long and arduous down into small and entertaining chunks will not work well for the media.The events and details that would be required to effectively tell each path through the process will not be shared due to this structural bias of the media.
This structural bias in the media is not limited by the media’s need to break each story down into small, entertaining and digestible chunks.The media tends to focus on a structure that allows for a summary of each story.When the newscasters don’t have an answer for the outcome of any situation, they tend to speculate.This leads the consumers of media to only be informed on matters that are already over and that interest them.According to unidentified House members in 1978, “[t]here isn’t one voter in 20,000 who knows my voting record… except on that one thing that affects him” and “Only a few discerning people know my voting record.But it is, of course, the voter dissatisfied with ‘the one thing that affects him’ or the ‘few discerning people’ that will press for explanations” (Hutchings 13).If the product is only based on what was exciting and it is reported after the process is finished, this leaves little room for the American public to have any influence on the process.
Note that the news about Congress is not necessarily boring.Following the process of each part of Congress is, however, and is therefore not reported.What is reported are the highlights of brief moments after they have already happened.So, daily aspects of the Congress are boring, what is seen on television though, may not be.
Looking back to the possibility of Congressional members being interested in appealing to the general public reveals another problem.Congress is not concerned with appealing to the nation as a whole.The fact that some poll may show extreme disapproval from the American public of one Senator or Representative is of no consequence to that Senator or Representative.As long as their district or State supports them, the rest of America could hate them.They are not elected by the nation as the President is and they know it.
The entire nation elects the President and as such is more interested in news about the President on television.As long as a Senator or Representative can appeal to his or her constituents, and convince them that they are helping them fight against the ‘system’, they maintain their voting base.They are only required to be involved in something exciting or newsworthy every so often as to be mentioned by the media often enough to be remembered by the media’s viewers.These actions to only stick their neck out long enough to gain attention with their constituents, are rational.If the member of Congress can convince their constituents that they are fighting for them, they build trust with them.This trust is crucial within the member’s home district or state when it comes time for re-election (Lipinski 20).
A media aware Congress promotes a news media that differs greatly from the President in its coverage.Neither the National media nor Congress need each other.Congress can’t gain or be hurt by national coverage and the media can not gain ratings by covering information of little consequence to its national viewers.Because of this, local media is much more important to Congress.The local media attention is best for Congress not only because it reports to those that can actually hold the Congressional members accountable, it is also less critical.The local media reports in a more personal and human interest driven style since the Congressional members are most likely members of the community themselves.
The media chooses not to cover the daily events of Congress since the President is a better media target, daily aspects of the Congress are boring, and Congress is not concerned with acting in a way that interests the National audience.Instead of blaming the media for problems transferring information to the public, it may be better to look at why they are reporting the way they do.We, the consumers of this media drive the results.If we are not concerned with Congress, we will not be bothered with stories about Congress.If we continue to hold the President responsible for every aspect of our Nation, the media will continue to feed that opinion.After all, if the media source does not appeal to our pre-judgments about daily life, we will not support the media.We will turn to a channel which appeals to us, we will cancel a newspaper subscription that is boring or biased against our views, and we will read entertainment magazines if the news magazines do not provide that entertainment.
WORKS CITED
Dennis, Everette E. and Robert W. Snyder.Covering Congress. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1998.
Vinson, Danielle.Local Media Coverage of Congress and its Members: Through Local Eyes.New Jersey: Hampton Press, 2002.
Arnold, Douglas.Congress, the Press, and Political Accountability.New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2006.
Lipinski, Daniel.Congressional Communication: Content and Consequences.Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 2004.
Cook, Timothy E.Making Laws and Making News.Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1989.
Hutchings, Vincent. Public Opinion and Democratic Accountability: How Citizens Learn About Politics.New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003.
According to an article in the mesa republic we are going to have to ban knives now too! Wouldn’t banning crime be a lot easier?
Mesa police are on the scene of an apparent fatal stabbing at Fiesta Mall, but aren’t releasing any details.
Witnesses told reporters the stabbing occurred just after 1 p.m. Monday in a bathroom off the food court. Police have not confirmed details, including the gender of the victim.
One witness said a man with a knife calmly spoke to a mall employee outside after the stabbing then left. Nobody was in custody.
The mall and food court remained open but the restrooms and long hallway leading to them were taped off.
The stabbing occurred a day after a man was stabbed at the Macy’s at the mall.
The victim was stabbed Sunday afternoon in the men’s clothing department by somebody he didn’t know. He said the assailant grabbed him from behind, reached around and stabbed him in the neck with a knife, according to a report.
The victim turned around and said to the man, “What are you doing? I don’t even know you.”
The man then stabbed the victim three times in the shoulder, police said.
Don’t throw away all of your global warming literature and propaganda just yet. If you save it long enough, you can use it the next time the fallacious theory comes around. I only wish I held on to all of my souvenirs from the ‘Global Cooling/Ice Age’ scare 30+ years ago now that the theory will become popular again soon.
It is amazing to me that the ebb and flow of the global warming/cooling trend follows the natural cycle of weather and nobody seems to notice. Weather throughout history gets warmer and cooler (see Firey Ball of Mass and Ice Age) Each time a new media trend about the weather starts, “scientific” data is presented that argues against a natural up and down pattern to the weather and instead insists some human source as the cause for the drastic and unprecedented change. Well, if the scientific data presented for the popular warming or cooling trend at the time is so important, then looking at all of the data together must be really important. In the sake of science then, lets take a look at the trends of alarmist weather reporting and see it change as often as fashion, music, and the natural weather patterns of our Earth.
When comparing trends, it is important to use the same source of measure in order to accurately show change. If I were to compare trends of popular music, I would show Billboard Top 40 charts from different decades, if I was going to compare fashion trends, I would use pictures from Cosmopolitan magazine, but since I am comparing trends of popular alarmist weather claims, I will use Time Magazine as a meter of relative opinion.
Lets start with a Time magazine covers from 1973 and 1979. ‘The Big Freeze’ and ‘The Cooling of America’ were warnings of the second coming of the Ice Age. Wait a second. The second coming? You mean to tell me that the Earth got that cold before all on its own without human interaction? And for that matter, the Earth was that cold before and it got warmer again without CO2 emissions from automobiles? Amazing. It almost seems as if this is a bit of a natural cycle for the Earth.
Laying common sense aside (hard for conservatives, easy for liberals), lets go ahead and hold Time magazine in high regard. Lets pretend that Time magazine is a reputable news source and believe them that if humans don’t change their ways, we are sure to face another ice age. Well, fast forward 30 years and we start to see a new opinion (yes, opinion) appear in news magazines…. Global Warming!
Time magazine covers from more recent issues display the new popular trend in global climate scare. Cover titles like “Be Worried, Be Very Worried” and “The Global Warming Survival Guide” show how quickly indisputable scientific evidence about global climate change can be reversed. Well, if it is easy to dismiss this data that came out 30 years ago as a mistake, why should we have believed the most recent scare of global warming? The same “scientists” were making their claims with the same severity as before, and they are both calling their theories “fact”. Well, they swore they weren’t wrong before, and they were. What is to say that the information they are swearing isn’t wrong now, is actually wrong too? Well, nothing… both cases were wrong.
So, I found it quite difficult to believe the Global Warming claims of Time magazine when I couldn’t believe the Global Cooling scare by Time magazine. I laughed to myself each time I heard… “No, we really mean it this time”. Well, now that we are back to global cooling again, do they mean it even more? Are the facts even more concrete? Is the risk even greater? Does the fact that the famous polar bear on the chunk of ice picture was taken in August (when ice naturally melts every season) during a unusually high polar bear population make the picture less effective for Time’s Global Warming cause? All I hope is that the “Global Warming Survival Guide” includes instructions on how to treat frostbite.
Yes, you read that right… we are back to Global Cooling again. In the past year we are seeing evidence of widespread Global Cooling.
“…South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency.
Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever. In northeastern Australia, the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered…”
More and more examples around the world (Jerusalem, Damascus, Vietnam, Great Brittian, Saudi Arabia, etc) are receiving record low temperatures and record snowfall too (see newsmax article here). It seems that Global Warming is not only wrong, but Global Cooling is actually happening instead. Here are some charts I found on Watts Up With That from the four major global temperature tracking sources to prove this:
UK’s Hadley Climate Research Institute (avg -0.595 C drop)
If Time magazine is wrong, I sure hope they don’t come out with a cover picture depicting how global warming is wrong. If they did, I might even start doubting my own conclusions given their track record of being on the wrong side of everything related to global climate change. Perhaps Time magazine is just a tool in the liberal toolbox to promote their scare tactics. Is that why they compare Al Gore to Christ in a recent cover?
Well, I hope this doesn’t make you lose your faith in our news system. After all, Time magazine did get something right, they named me as Time magazine Person of the Year:
I have to give credit to my wonderful fiancee for pointing this one out to me.
Apparently, in bin Laden’s latest video, he complains that the people working for him are not doing their jobs well enough. In order to embarrass them in public, he chastises them for the world to see.
According to an MSNBC Article:
Officials said bin Laden criticized Democrats in Congress in the video for being unable to stop the war in Iraq. The al-Qaida leader also urged young Muslims to carry out suicide bombings against the West…
Wow, he gets mad at the people that he feels are supposed to be working for him… liberals. And then, he encourages Muslims to do what liberals don’t believe happens.
You know, I almost forgot about bin Laden’s tapes since it has been so long since the last one. Last one I remember was in late 2004 when he was supporting his choice for the American Presidency, John Kerry.
Alright liberals, you heard him… he is trying to get you elected (which means he is not afraid of you and would prefer a world in which you give him hugs and talk about feelings while he encourages more people to kill you) and he is unhappy with your performance. You better shape up, or he may just fire you!
For years now starlets such as Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie, and Lindsay Lohan have been able to hide behind their fame when it comes to their propensity for breaking the law. Their “teflon” status reminds me of mafia dons that seem to break the law but the authorities never get anything to stick.
Lindsay “The Nose” Lohan, named for her ability to snort copious amounts of drugs in a simple drive around the block is the latest starlet to make national news. She has been fairly safe for a while now hiding in the shadows of the more notorious Paris “The Hotel” Hilton (named not for the family business, but rather for her constant vacancy upstairs and rotating guest list) and Nicole “Bones” Richie (named, of course, for the uncanny ability to see all of her bones despite her skin). Her only mention came in the form of an advertisement on a billboard for a driving school in The Hotel’s spoof jail video along with a brief mention of Bones (who now being pregnant, is eating for one)… perhaps a visible connection to the starlet underworld.
The Nose’s most recent mention in the media is concerning her attempted hit on the family of her underboss captain. She was caught chasing her captain’s mother with her signature cocaine in her pocket. Authorities, after arresting her, were able to tie her to an alias that had eluded them for while now, “50/50″ coined for her preferred 50/50 blood/alcohol mixture. This latest information has allowed the connection of The Nose to previous DUI incidents where the anonymous “50/50″ left her calling card, a wrecked Mercedes.
It is refreshing to see the Police cleaning up the streets and prosecuting these Starlet Mafia Bosses. Unknown numbers of mafia members (mostly preteen girls) are scattered in sleeper cells communicating only via text messages. The capture of these Bosses has enabled police to decode messages between cells such as “CUL8R BFF” and “TTFN GF” now understood now to mean “See you later, best friend forever” and “Ta Ta for now, girlfriend”. This information will hopefully lead to interception of more messages.
Quite possibly the biggest reward of these recent arrests is that the members of the mafia may get the message and realize that being in the starlet mafia makes you run the risk of looking trashy in a televised mug shot, and therefore reduce the number of followers.
The fairness doctrine might as well be named the Agricultural Accord or the Industrial Ideology. Why? Because all three names are equally inappropriate titles of the bill for which they are named. For the sake of saving even more confusion than what the bill produces already, I will refer to it by its official name, the Fairness Doctrine.
The Fairness Doctrine suggests that political radio and television stations must present equal sides to every topic presented. This liberal dream raises more than a few questions for me.
• Who decides what radio and television shows are political entertainment vs. news?
• What is considered equal? How deep into each extreme must the opinions reach?
• What is the penalty for not presenting “fair” coverage?
• What agency is willing to punish a private media source for not broadcasting approved messages?
The last question brings to mind the biggest legal issue presented. Freedom of speech does not exist within any situation that does not include a governmental agency trying to oppress a member of the community. This concept (as with many factual circumstance) baffles many liberals and furthers their misinterpretation of actual laws versus modern cliches. For example, outspoken Bush hater, Natalie Means of the Dixie Chicks, exclaimed that America shouldn’t be allowed to boycott her music on the basis of her right to free speech. What she is missing here, is we do not have a right to say whatever we want and not be held accountable for our statements. Our free speech only protects us against government persecution for our speech. Don’t believe me? Try telling your boss to go to hell. Try shouting racial slurs in a minority neighborhood. See how protected by some imaginary protect liberals believe in.
Another popular misconception, as side note example, held by liberals focuses on the separation of church and state. Try finding “separation of church and state” in the constitution, the articles of confederation, the declaration of independence, or any lawbook. The actual law states that there may be no government sponsored church. This isn’t understood every time some religious statement or display occurs on a governmental institution. As long as the governmental isn’t sponsoring the religion and is instead merely supporting multicultural beliefs, the display or statements are constitutionally protected.
So, the question remains…. what governmental agency is willing to step in and actually enforce a private and protected entertainment source’s infraction against a fair broadcast? How is this “fair”?
(CBS) WASHINGTON Sen. David Vitter is apologizing for what he calls “a very serious sin in my past” - a statement released by the Louisiana Republican after his telephone number appeared among those associated with an escort service operated by the so-called “D.C. Madam.”…
So, Senator Vitter, a long time proponent of moral legislation confessed to a crime after he was caught? This hypocrisy makes me sick. Here is a man that has been trying to create laws based on a moral fiber that he himself does not possess.
I am all for small government (especially when it comes to the government telling me how to live my life). And I do not feel that gay marriage is right, but I also don’t think it is right for Sen. Vitter to take a “moral” stance and speak out so strongly against gay marriage on “moral” grounds when he is cheating on his wife with a prostitute.
Sen. Vitter said:
“This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible. Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there - with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way.”
Well, good for him… he confessed after his name was published by the DC Madam and he has an amazing PR person. That is an amazing response to the situation, but why should I care that he feels God forgave him? All I see is a hypocrite.
Don’t get me wrong, I know we all make mistakes. We are all human. I am not as upset with his mistake as I am with his audacity to preach to us and try and legislate his “views” on our lives all while he was going against what he was preaching.
If he is so tough on crime (as he says he is) shouldn’t there be an officer knocking on his door any minute now? Or is that his private life? Amazing isn’t it? He wants to legislate other’s rights in their private life, but wants us to butt out?!?!
The University of Michigan-Dearborn is spending 25,000 of taxpayer money to fund footbaths for Muslims to use before their prayers. Yes, thats right.. taxpayer money to pay for religious needs at a public school.
What does the ACLU have to say about this? They think it is ok! The same ACLU that sued a Luisianna State School board for allowing a Christian Preacher to hand out free pizza at a school. The ACLU cried that an educational campus is no place for religious activities. The leader of the Detroit chapter of the ACLU actually tried to convince us that it is a matter of public health and cleanliness, not religion.
Well, he said it… Muslims have feet so dirty that we have to band together as a community to fund their washings.
I found this amazing article found on the site, zombietime.com. I suggest you check the site out, it is really pretty informative!
Anatomy of a Photograph
An analysis of a single seemingly innocuous photograph, and the pervasive media bias it reveals.
My photo essay of the anti-war protest in San Francisco on September 24, 2005 was not the only report done about the event. A few other outlets ran their own coverage. But the one photo from the rally that was seen by the most people was this:
Why? Because the San Francisco Chronicle, which had the only mainstream media coverage of the rally, published this photograph on the front page of its Web site as a teaser for their article about the event.
Now, let’s take a closer look at this image.
By chance, I took a photo of the same girl just a few moments later. Looks practically identical, doesn’t it?
But you might notice that my picture is lower resolution. That’s because it’s a zoomed-in portion of a much larger photograph. I cropped off the other parts of the picture to get a close-up of the girl.
But what would happen if I hadn’t cropped off so much? Let’s take a step backward and reveal what the San Francisco Chronicle didn’t want you to see.
Here’s the same photo without as much cropping, revealing more of the context. You can see that the girl’s protest contingent also sported Palestinian flags and obscene placards.
Now let’s take another step back.
Here’s my full original photo, uncropped. Now we can see that the girl is just one of several teenagers, all wearing terrorist-style bandannas covering their faces.
But, as you’ll notice, the bandannas are all printed with the same design. Was this a grassroots protest statement the teenagers had come up with all by themselves?
To find out, let’s take a look at another photo in the series, taken at the same time:
Oops — it looks like they’re actually being stage-managed by an adult, who is giving them directions and guiding them toward the front of the march. But who is she?
The last picture in the series reveals all.
It turns out that the woman giving directions belongs to one of the Communist groups organizing the rally — if her t-shirt is to be believed, since it depicts the flag of Communist Vietnam, which has been frequently displayed by such groups at protest rallies in the U.S. for decades.
The San Francisco Chronicle featured the original photograph on its front Web page in order to convey a positive message about the rally — perhaps that even politically aware teenagers were inspired to show up and rally for peace, sporting the message, “People of Color say ‘No to War!’” And that served the Chronicle’s agenda.
But this simple analysis reveals the very subtle but insidious type of bias that occurs in the media all the time. The Chronicle did not print an inaccuracy, nor did it doctor a photograph to misrepresent the facts. Instead, the Chronicle committed the sin of omission: it told you the truth, but it didn’t tell you the whole truth.
Because the whole truth — that the girl was part of a group of naive teenagers recruited by Communist activists to wear terrorist-style bandannas and carry Palestinian flags and obscene placards — is disturbing, and doesn’t conform to the narrative that the Chronicle is trying to promote. By presenting the photo out of context, and only showing the one image that suits its purpose, the Chronicle is intentionally manipulating the reader’s impression of the rally, and the rally’s intent.
Such tactics — in the no-man’s-land between ethical and unethical — are commonplace in the media, and have been for decades. It is only now, with the advent of citizen journalism, that we can at last begin to see the whole story and realize that the public has been manipulated like this all along.
————————————————————————————————————————————–
UPDATE: This essay has caused such an outcry that the San Francisco Chronicle has now (on October 2, 2005) run a column about zombietime and the controversy surrounding the photo, defending itself from charges of bias. You can read the column here. (Someone at the Chronicle also wrote to me directly and rather brazenly requested that I update my site with a link to their response — which I have just done — although they purposely did not include a link to “Anatomy of a Photograph” in their column. They insist that I allow my readers to see the Chronicle’s side of the story, but they won’t let their readers see my side of the story. Again, the whiff of arrogance.)
Some of the Chronicle’s defensiveness is the result of the paper’s having been barraged by emails from zombietime readers, some of whom slightly misinterpreted a couple of points in my analysis above. Please note that I do not claim that the Chronicle cropped its photograph, which is obviously a high-resolution close-up and thus not cropped much, if at all; I only discuss cropping my photograph. I also didn’t say that the Chronicle ran the photo on the front page of its print edition, but rather on the front page of its online edition.
Part of the Chronicle’s attempted rebuttal is the claim that, since some of my readers jumped to the conclusion that the picture was on the front page of the print edition, this somehow constituted an “error” on my part that I refuse to acknowledge. I think that it should be fairly universally understood that when a Web site provides a link to an article or photo it is discussing, it is referring to the online version. Blogs and media-related Web sites deal pretty much exclusively with information and links that are online.
The Chronicle also defends itself by saying that its article about the rally did mention a few of the controversial aspects of the event. A defense which, to me, misses the mark on two counts: first, “Anatomy of a Photograph” was specifically about the Chronicle’s photo coverage (and the decision to highlight one specific photograph), not about the textual news article; and second, its article only very peripherally referred to a couple of radical elements, and glossed over almost all of the extremism that was manifested at the rally.
And lastly, the Chronicle claims that the photo was chosen because it was visually arresting, not for any political considerations. And of course the photo is a good image, based solely on stylistic characteristics: the girl is pretty, and her face is in sharp focus.
But this brings up a larger issue concerning media coverage of these events. Newspapers and other mainstream outlets run photos that almost always fall into these four categories:
a. Wide shots of the crowd at a distance, in which individual messages aren’t clearly visible. A good example is this photo in the Chronicle (oops, I mean: on the Chronicle’s Web page).
c. Human-interest images of people, in which the political aspect is peripheral or cut off, as in this photo.
d. Mid-range shots of people displaying “safe,” non-controversial messages, like the one visible here.
Now, there’s nothing wrong with any of these kinds of photographs; each, in its own way, is a valid type of image. But what media outlets rarely publish are the kind of photographs that I feature on zombietime: mid-range images focusing on individual protesters displaying their heartfelt (and often intense) messages. And that’s all a rally is really composed of: thousands of individuals, each with their own messages. By showing them as an overall group, or by showing the individuals without their messages, or by showing only non-controversial messages, media outlets (probably unconsciously) influence the public’s impressions of such events as being somewhat less disturbing and less politically radical than they really are.
Yet the public is hungry for the type of uncompromising, in-your-face photography that can be found on zombietime and similar Web sites and blogs, since we show the kind of images that simply can’t be found in mainstream media outlets. At least 250 Web sites linked to zombietime’s photo coverage of the September 24 rally. How many sites specifically linked to the Chronicle’s photo coverage? (The answer: None.)
If the Chronicle is truly unbiased in its coverage (which I doubt rather strongly: I know several Chronicle staffers, and have been in the Chronicle offices, and I can say that there is — as there is at most major newspapers — an overall left-wing/”progressive” atmosphere at the paper), and if it wants to increase readership, then it should take a close look at how it frames and reports on certain issues. Whitewashing potential controversies, or lazily presenting unchallenged the narrative of people or groups it is covering, only leads to a bland paper and a bored readership.
This blurb is found at various sources all over the internet:
“Doctors:
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services.)
Now think about this:
Guns:
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. Yes, that is 80 million.
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.0000187.
Statistically, doctors are 9,144 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Remember, “Guns don’t kill people, doctors do.”
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!
(Out of concern for the public at large, our statistician withheld data on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.)”
Now, even though I really like the idea conveyed by this quote, it does have some shortcomings. It compares accidental deaths caused by doctors and guns only….what about purposeful deaths? I would like to think doctors still produce a larger number, but the fact remains, this quote fails to cover that variable.
I found another quote from ‘Freakonomics’ by Chicago economics professor Steven Levitthat makes a better comparison:
“In a given year, there is one drowning of a child for every 11,000 residential swimming pools in the United States. (In a country with 6 million pools, this means that roughly 550 children under the age of ten drown each year.) Meanwhile, there is 1 child killed by a gun for every 1 millionplus guns. (In a country with an estimated 200 million guns, this means that roughly 175 children under ten die each year from guns.) The likelihood of death by swimming pool (1 in 11,000) versus death by gun (1 in 1 million-plus) isn’t even close.”
Is voting a right? I thought it was a privilege. One that can be revoked by the government.
Well, the ACLU is at it again… they files a lawsuit in Seattle, Washington arguing that the state shouldn’t be able to restrict convicted felons from voting. The state prevents these convicted felons from voting, even after they have completed their full prison term, due to their indebtedness with the state concerning their legal and court fees.
The ACLU is trying to make the point that a person’s “right” to vote shouldn’t be based on financial status. Well, it’s not… it’s based on moral status. Poor people that obey the law are allowed to vote all across America. It seems that if they never had a problem distinguishing right from wrong in the first place, they wouldn’t be in this position. And that is exactly why I don’t want them voting, their diminished capacity to make clear decisions for the good of society.
So why does the ACLU want them to vote so bad? The ACLU is an unappologetic extreme liberal organization and they feel this will gain their party more votes since criminals tend to hold liberal viewpoint since Democrats are far softer on crime.
A spokesperson for the ACLU said, “…our current laws keep former felons from exercising the most basic right of citizenship.” No, our current laws are broken by convicted felons and they are choosing to give up certain privileges that law abiding citizens have.
I would like to thank Bryant Gumbel of HBO’s Real Sports for this amazing quote. For without it, I would not have had the motivation to create yet another blog entry.
“Finally, tonight, the Winter Games. Count me among those who don’t like them and won’t watch them … Because they’re so trying, maybe over the next three weeks we should all try too. Like, try not to be incredulous when someone attempts to link these games to those of the ancient Greeks who never heard of skating or skiing. So try not to laugh when someone says these are the world’s greatest athletes, despite a paucity of blacks that makes the Winter Games look like a GOP convention. Try not to point out that something’s not really a sport if a pseudo-athlete waits in what’s called a kiss-and-cry area, while some panel of subjective judges decides who won … So if only to hasten the arrival of the day they’re done, when we can move on to March Madness — for God’s sake, let the games begin.” –Bryant Gumbel
So let me get the bolded section of his quote correct:
Olympic athletes are not the best in the world
They are not because they aren’t black
GOP conventions (republican) are only for whites
So what should we do to fix this problem Bryant? The last time I remember you crying and complaining about something, a solution was reached that made America happy. You whined and cried about your job on CBS’ morning program, “The Early Show” and threatened to quit many times. Well, finally one day you did, after you failed to do the job for which you were hired. You were supposed to use your three years on the air to increase the show’s ratings…and you couldn’t. Now you are on some HBO show that I had to research to find the name of.
So, readers, what is it that makes it OK for him to say such blatantly racist comments? If I were to say an equivalent, I would be persecuted!
Don’t believe me? OK, I’ll try.
So try not to laugh when someone says that professional basketball players are not thugs and criminals, despite a scarceness of whites that makes the NBA look like a prison yard basketball game.
Oh, now I got your attention. That is racist isn’t it?
If you are truly upset, and think that my statement is wrong, let me show you how it compares.
Basketball players are thugs and criminals
They are because they aren’t white
Prison yards are only for blacks
I used the same format to summarize my statement as I did the first in order to allow for a comparison. The first part of the statement insinuates that professional basketball players are all thugs and criminals. This is untrue. It is just as untrue as hinting that the Olympic athletes are not the best in the world. The second part of the statement tries to support the first untruth based on skin color in both circumstances. And the third part of the statement makes a racist connection between a group of people that happen to be a majority of a certain color, whether or not it has anything to do with it.
Yes, prison yard basketball games are majority black.
In a recent study conducted by Ray Nagin, New Orleans Mayor, God actually prefers chocolate to any other flavor. Nagin, during his Martin Luther King Day speech, honored MLK’s vision in ending racist views by saying, “I don’t care what people are saying uptown or wherever they are. This city will be chocolate at the end of the day. This city will be a majority African-American city. It’s the way God wants it to be.”
Since there is no way this could be racist, he must have been talking about ice cream. Apparently he has discovered that God truly favors chocolate and wants to cover the city in ice cream as an offering to God.
It amazes me, and it shouldn’t, every time I see these gross double standards in our society!
Here is Liberalism at its finest:
Oh, the horror! These cartoons are horrible! How dare somebody use a political cartoon to make a point! How dare they bring to light the absurdity and violence of terrorists!
According to an associated press article on msnbc.com, “Several thousand Iraqis in the south rallied to demand severing all ties with countries in which the caricatures were published. The protest witnessed the burning of Danish, German and Israeli flags and an effigy of Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Protesters called for the death of anyone who insults Muhammad…..In Kabul, hundreds of young men, many wielding sticks, marched through the capital and attacked the Danish embassy with stones, smashing windows….”
These poor downtrodden people of the “religion of peace” spoke out to defend their religion. They wanted to show the world that they are not violent terrorists as these cartoons wrongly describe. They are actually loving, accepting people that mean no harm to anyone!–
Well, I am convinced! That sure looks like the religion of peace to me! Or perhaps with all of that holocaust and beheading talk, we have actually lost the true name for their religion somewhere in the translation. Somewhere some UN interpreter mistook ‘peace’ for ‘pieces’. Yah, that has a better ring to it, Islam: The Religion of Pieces.
Too bad everyone is ganging up on these poor defenseless Terrorists! Why didn’t the Dutch make appropriate cartoons like these instead of the horrible and disgusting ones that they did.
These are much more humane and obviously acceptable, since we don’t hear anyone complaining about these:
So let me get this straight, I wouldn’t want to offend anybody. It is alright to show Jews as lice (An instant classic!), the Statue of Liberty shooting missiles (Now, that’s funny!), a U.S. Soldier raping an Iraqi woman (originally clever and funny at the same time!) , Ariel Sharron eating Arab children (That’s priceless!), and an American flag as snakes.
Just more examples of it being OK to insult or talk down about someone or something as long as the liberal left sees you as a minority.
Am I referring to Paul Revere’s famous ride warning us of British invasion? Nope. No lanterns here. What should we then use to warn the rest of America of Mexico’s invasion? Tamales?
The Mexican military, as it has done 216 other times, has illegally crossed into our country to support human and drug trafficking. The military of Mexico can be bought for a fee and they are supporting supply lines and assisting drug traffickers and human smugglers in crossing the border.
Undocumented military force for sale!
Get your Mexican flag memorabilia while it lasts!
Don’t be that gringo during the occupation!
Come to think of it, this isn’t new, they have done it so many other times, and a huge portion of their citizens (repeat THEIR citizens) are already here under their government’s permission and influence! We are getting occupied!
Maybe our new dictator will let me keep my blog title!
Did liberals go through eight other titles until they found one they could sell to America?
Title I: Screw male athletes plan
Title II: Unfair advantage for female athletes plan
Title III: Lets coddle the girls plan
Title IV: Money for gender, not merit plan
Title V: Girls need extra help plan
Title VI: Socialism in sports plan
Title VII: We ran out of important things to do plan
Title IIX: Maybe France will like us now plan
After the first eight titles, they apparently saw their chances of implementing this plan dwindling, and they surely ran out of ideas. Someone somewhere in some boardroom must have said, “Let’s just call it Title IX, that way nobody will know what it is about.”
Title IX was instituted in 1972 and its entire design was to prevent Universities from discriminating athletes on the basis of sex…..remember this sentence.
Title IX says that if 52% of the student body is female, then 52% of the athletes need to be female. The major offender in keeping this proportionate number unbalanced is the football program at many universities. Backers of Title IX complain that the school spends too much money on their football programs. According to Nancy Hogshead-Makar, who specializes in Title IX cases where she teaches at the Florida Coastal School of Law, “There are three genders - men, women and football.” Yes, football does get a large amount of the budget…but let’s not forget this, football brings in a large amount of the budget.
If the women want their football, fine! Let them have it! Of course they will have to go through the same steps to birth their super sport as men did. They will have to invent a new game, establish rules and regulations, organize teams, and go from there. After 20 or so years, if their sport is popular with America, they will have started to create their own football. Then, when the sport is played in universities, people will actually want to go see them play and the money will start coming in. Simple as that.
I wish the argument ended there. Instead of promoting sports for female athletes in order to comply with Title IX, universities are cutting males and entire male sports programs to “even” the numbers out. Greg Louganis, the Olympic gold medalist, dove on the University of Miami’s swimming and diving team. That team no longer exists because of Title IX. The UCLA gymnastics team, which boasts a proud history of Olympic level gymnasts, was smashed in the path of Title IX as well. You may not care that only 20 men’s gymnast teams now exist instead of the over a hundred before Title IX’s wrath. Maybe you will care when you see the screenshot of whatever news station is covering the Olympics shows the total number of medals by country. Just as a start, don’t plan on seeing any for men’s swimming, diving, wrestling, or gymnastics….they are becoming extinct.
In order to boost numbers of female athletes, many universities have created female crew. What a wonderful idea! A new sport that we can cram as many women on as we need to get our numbers to comply! As 60 Minutes interviewed the new female members of Arizona State University’s crew team, many of the girls (receiving full ride scholarships mind you) admitted to not only never rowing a boat, but one girl even admitted to not knowing what crew was when she was approached by ASU. Wonderful idea! ASU cut Olympic level gymnasts, and replaced them with a bunch of women on full ride scholarships that don’t even know what their sport is. How does this not piss women off? Don’t you ladies see that you are being used here?
So, many men are being told they can’t play simply because they are men….remember that sentence from before? —“ Title IX was instituted in 1972 and its entire design was to prevent Universities from discriminating athletes on the basis of sex” Sure looks like Title IX is working to me!
