Thursday, June 30, 2011
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Monday, June 27, 2011
He's going to go from being on the #1 cable news channel to something that will have less impact than public television.
More here: http://www.gbtv.com/
Friday, June 24, 2011
My first, most obvious problem is that white babies are absolutely still the majority. Hispanic, Asian and Black babies are not all part of one big baby conglomerate. They are Hispanic or Asian or Black. End of story. This is such a common way of looking at things from a political point of view where you are white or you are not, and I think it does nothing but further the divide because...
Secondly, the entire tone of the article appears to be, "Look out White America, it's time to change the way you do business!" Of course, this is how small interest groups manufacture fake power in America today. They ally themselves with other disenfranchised minorities, no matter whether their interests intersect or not, to make themselves appear stronger. The old adage goes that the enemy of my enemy is my friend and that may be true, but when all is said and done that friendship lasts only as long as the enemy remains. What then? The real truth is that there are no enemies here, or at least there shouldn't be. In the end, we must all learn to coexist, and propagandist articles like this only make that more difficult.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
"Teenagers are not pests to be repelled."
Now, as a teenager I would have found this device to be the height of discrimination and my moral outrage meter would have exploded off the charts. As a full grown hippocrite, however, I couldn't disagree more. Teenagers are the worst. I intend to cut off all communication with my brother's kids whence they become teens, and if I ever have children of my own they will most assuredly find themselves in a boarding school between stints of summer camp sooner rather than later.
However, I am aware that there is always due controversy when one begins to squat on the rights of anyone-even if those oppressed are not fully formed or contributing members of society-so it is my opinion that we should not punish too harshly the teen who has the balls to take it upon himself to destroy the transmitter the first chance he gets. Although, if he's wearing a Che t-shirt at the time I say they throw the book at him. Responsible choices youth of today. Responsible choices!
Bronstein told Fox News Radio that his organization was especially concerned with the use of the word “heaven.” “We’ve concluded as atheists there is no heaven and there’s no hell,” he said.
That just stirkes me as one of the more smug statments I've ever heard. Why not, "Our years of thinking about it have led us to the clear conclusion that we are right and they are wrong. How can you deny this?"
And check this out:
City leaders seemed dumbfounded by the atheists’ outrage because no one complained about the sign as it was going through a public approval process. “It’s unfortunate that they didn’t raise this as an issue while it was undergoing its public review either at the community board level or when it came before the City Council on their public agenda,” said Craig Hammerman, the district manager for Brooklyn Community Board 6.
Yes it is indeed unfortunate that the atheists didn't come forward during the approval process. And you know what else? It's downright fishy. It's almost as though they figured they could drum up more support for their bitter cause if they pretended that the city has sneaked this in under their noses.
Makes me miss the days when atheists would merely shake their heads and chuckle at when people discussed religion. My guess is that too many lawyers have adapted the non-faith because otherwise they'd have to come to terms with the idea that they may have to answer for their choices in life. And once you have the lawyers on your side, well...
Friday, June 17, 2011
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
*I hope I didn't need to use the Burnt Umber Sarcasm Indicator on that line.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Was Shannon Spaulding exercising her right to free speech? Or did her valedictory address violate the civil rights of others?
Seriously, does the term "civil rights" even have an actual meaning anymore? The law seems to interpret one's civil rights as the right to not be annoyed or offended at any time. At this point it would be easier to examine what is not a civil rights violation.
(Honestly, I was going to list some things that wouldn't offend anyone, but I can't think of a single one.)
Sunday, June 12, 2011
And the second post has to do with the picture above. It's a new toy collection that has the caption bellow for it's description.
Viva la Revolución! So maybe you can't take up arms and join the resistance
right now. In the meantime, keeping these guys handy will remind you of your
revolutionary roots and let everyone else know that you don't roll with
What The Fuck? Those guys ARE! "The Man." By definition Lenin and Mao are The Man. Do I need to explain why?
(on a side note, I find it interesting that Gandhi was put in there and no Martin Luther King. Instead we have Malcolm X. Most people I know who love Gandhi also love MLK because of their strong stance on non-violence. Why a gun toting muslim convert instead? Has MLK become too Christian? For that matter, why is Gandhi in there at all? Surrounded by murderers! Clearly anyone who buys this toy isn't opposed to violent men. Why not Marx himself?)
Thursday, June 09, 2011
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Monday, June 06, 2011
Quick Thought: While their might have been sexism thrown at Clinton (I'm not so sure by whom or in what context), their was definately sexism towards Palin. Oddly enough it wasn't men who were sexist towards Palin, but in fact other women. Don't believe me? all you have to do is watch The View and you will see.
Thursday, June 02, 2011
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
Where was Kobe in that ad?