Member since: Sat Mar 20, 2004, 11:37 AM
Number of posts: 16,694
Number of posts: 16,694
- 2016 (1)
- March (1)
- 2015 (3)
- 2014 (6)
- 2013 (17)
- 2012 (28)
- 2011 (2)
- December (2)
- Older Archives
I was wondering about this when I see some of these religious conscience laws.
Take Mississippi for example:
Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.
And there's more...
Linking religious beliefs to believing an "individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics of the individual at the time of birth"
-HB 773 in Virginia
"The terms male or man and female or woman refer to distinct and immutable biological sexes that are determined by anatomy and genetics by the time of birth."
-HB 1107 in North Dakota
"For the purposes of this section “biological sex” means the physical condition of being male or female, which is determined by a person’s chromosomes, and is identified at birth by a person’s anatomy and indicated on their birth certificate."
-SB 720 in Missouri
Taking a look at these bills, I don't know about anyone else, but I am seeing something start to stick out.
Items of interest:
* Dichotomies (Often seen in religious fundamentalism. God and Satan. Believer and unbeliever. Heaven and Hell. Faithful and heretic. And in this case... Male and female.)
* "At birth" and "immutable", more and more it sounds like one's genetic code is not just that, but actually something on par with scripture, something divinely inspired and set in stone
* The fact that these bills share the space with religious accommodation merits mention as well.
* These bills make it seem like gender is purely ascribed, that it's 'your place' and not conforming to your gender role as assigned by your birth and your 'sacred and unchanging genetics' is heresy
Now is it bad enough to call it all an establishment of religion? I don't think so, but with the right crazy enough to give Trump the nomination, you can never know for sure just far they will jump off the deep end.
Posted by ck4829 | Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:04 PM (5 replies)
While the shooter was active inside the Planned Parenthood clinic, Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) (Apologist for Terrorism) went on live TV and blasted the organization. “We saw these barbaric videos, and that was something that many of us have a legitimate concern about,” Kinzinger said.
He was referring to highly-edited undercover videos that falsely claim Planned Parenthood was illegally selling body party from aborted fetuses.
Kinzinger, the Apologist for Terrorism, also criticized a statement from Planned Parenthood about the incident as “very premature.” He said that, if it was later discovered the shooter was not targeting Planned Parenthood he would “fully expect an apology.” (The statement, while criticizing “extremists” for “creating a poisonous environment that feeds domestic terrorism in this country,” acknowledged that “we don’t yet know if Planned Parenthood was in fact the target of this attack.”)
The congressman, the Apologist for Terrorism, had no problems, however, diagnosing the motives and influences of the shooter. “This is a person that has a mental health issue, that is to some level psychotic and crazy,” Kinzinger said. He also said the shooter could have had a “legitimate disagreement” with Planned Parenthood.
So that's it, he plays the victim, blames the victims, says the shooter was just mentally ill, and says he has a 'legitimate disagreement' all in one sitting? I'd really like to see how 'legitimate disagreement' leads to murdering three people and wounding others.
So whenever you see Kinzinger mentioned, be sure to drop this link, Apologist for Terrorism (or (link http://kinzinger.house.gov/ Apologist for Terrorism with a colon and a bar), because that's what he is.
Posted by ck4829 | Sat Nov 28, 2015, 09:30 AM (5 replies)
Paul Vallely and his group, Stand Up America, get mentioned here from time to time.
And here he suggests an overthrow of Obama.
So in the news is Wayne Simmons, the Fox News 'unpaid guest' (According to them) who said he was a big paramilitary ops leader, it all turned out that he is a big fat phony.
It looks like this 'unpaid guest' was also part of the "Kitchen Cabinet" for Paul Vallely's organization. Wouldn't know it now other than the fact the Google search results still show it, but you will get a big 404 error.
It looks like they've scrubbed the site, but hey, what's caching for, right?
And here are some images too:
So these guys want to sell us war, they want to sell us their version of national security, that torture isn't that bad, that we need to invade Iran right now; but yet they can't even vet their own guys? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again.
It also looks like he was part of the Pentagon's military analyst program, how did that happen?
Posted by ck4829 | Fri Oct 16, 2015, 02:06 PM (1 replies)
So I decided to put the search the story about Muslims being shouted down in Texas and I stopped instantly when I saw the snip that Google News provides on things that are happening, and it was pretty much art in itself. And yes, if you are wondering, the Texas Legislator in the third article is a right wing Republican. So righties, do you want displays of patriotism, or do you not want them?
Posted by ck4829 | Fri Jan 30, 2015, 10:01 AM (1 replies)
"Obama is on vacation... again!"
"Obama is lazy"
"Tell Obama to get off the golf course!"
This is just a microcosm, one that represents what is going on here. Obama has taken vacation, but his 138 days pales in comparison to the 1138 days that Congress has taken.
What causes people to ignore the fact that the Republican-led Congress has taken nearly ten times the vacation that Obama has taken? It's almost comical, and indeed, the perfect point to lead into this because of how disproportionate it is.
Humans have a natural tendency to exaggerate the harm caused by what they deem the 'other', and to dismiss any notion of harm caused by a group that is familiar to them.
It's tribalism at it's core. (In this case, the 'good' Republicans vs the 'bad' Democrats)
Today we have systems, politicians, media, and more that serve to exaggerate the exaggerations already present, entrench them, and enshrine them in our society, and make them ideas that are firmly rooted in our culture.
And it's something that feeds into privilege, whether it be white, male, wealthy, straight, and so on.
Ferguson - They're all rioters and making it about race... no matter how peaceful they will be. But the city has absolutely no problems inside it even though it's putting out more arrest warrants than people who live in the city.
Crime in general - A white person who commits a crime is just mentally ill, an outlier so to speak. A black person commits a crime and the entire community is somehow responsible, they all have to confront what is going on.
Inequality - A safety net for the poor is reprehensible, they should all be viewed with suspicion. But a rich person earned his inheritance and network of other rich people.
And you will find far more examples with even cursory glances, so ask why, and I mean really challenge the people who walk around with this way of thinking... that why some groups are responsible as a whole for their violent members, but other groups are not their keepers. Why the actions of some people merit disdain, but similar (Or even greater) actions by others get a shrug.
The Magnifying Glass of the 'bad other' and the Blindfold of the 'good familiar' will only hold us back a whole, and I think that this kind of increasingly entrenched tribalism will only lead us to ruin in the end.
Posted by ck4829 | Wed Aug 27, 2014, 01:07 PM (2 replies)
Back in 2011, I had written this thread:
It was entertaining, but also very frightening to see all the wildy diverging and unsourced data about cutting people off from unemployment insurance.
Next month, it will be three years since I wrote that and many of the links from those things I had pasted have since faded. So I decided, why not make another one, all from articles and discussions after I had posted this thread?
So here goes...
"Disagree...It's been shown that about 1/3 of people on unemployment find a job immediatly when the unemployment ends."
-Here is where it's shown. Ready? Ha! Fooled you.
"Here’s another statistic you should know: two-thirds of people on unemployment find a job… wait for it… within two weeks of their benefits running out. In other words, the job search tends to get serious when the well is about to runs dry.
-Nothing to back this statistic up."
"The vast majority of people on unemployment find a job within the last two weeks of benefits ending."
-Nowhere to be found.
"I think that the records show most people on unemployment get a job about two weeks before their benefits run out."
-Problem finding the record for the record?
"Government stats show that about 70% of people on unemployment get a job shorty after their Benefits run out. Why? Because all of the sudden they really needed a Job."
-Government stats are pretty easy to cite, why didn't you?
"There are a lot of statistics that support people getting "comfortable" on government assistance. For instance most people on unemployment get a job within the LAST 2 weeks of their payments."
-2 weeks? Oh really?
"I cannot find the documentation to support this assertion, but I believe it is true that most people on unemployment find a job right before the unemployment expires."
-Finally someone who says he has nothing to support his assertion and admits it's just a belief, that's all you had to say!
It looks like the right wing echo chamber that we don't see is starting to find something to latch onto with two weeks, so if you ever see a person say something like this, ask them where they got their data, and if they say "Most" and "two weeks before", ask them ten times as hard.
Posted by ck4829 | Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:55 PM (1 replies)
Bryan Fischer lays out the economic ideology of homophobia AKA Freedomism (Anti-Gay) Nazis (Pro-Gay)
Last month, after Christian radio stations and music fans began to boycott the band Jars of Clay over the lead singer's support for marriage equality, Bryan Fischer proclaimed that this sort of reaction was the logical result of that singer's own decision to make a "foolish declaration."
If someone chooses to speak out on this sort of issue, Fischer declared, "that's fine, but then don't complain when there are consequences for making a foolish declaration like that."
Of course, that was two whole weeks ago, back when Fischer found such "consequences" to be totally acceptable because he happened to disagree with the stated position of the person who was experiencing those consequences. That stand has now been totally abandoned in the face of the Benham brothers having lost their HGTV program over their anti-gay, anti-choice activism, with Fischer declaring on his radio program today that they are the victims of the "gay gestapo" which will soon force Christians to wear yellow crosses upon their sleeves "like the Jews in Nazi Germany."
"They're going to make us wear yellow crosses on our sleeves," Fischer stated, "so they can identify us, so they will know whom not to hire, they will know whom to fire ... they will know whom not to do business with"
Just to recap, when someone that Fischer disagrees with suffers a backlash because of their publicly stated position, that is because "there are consequences for making a foolish declaration" ... but when someone that Fischer agrees with suffers consequences for making public declarations, that is Nazi-like persecution.
The scary thing is, he's not alone. And this whole concept can be looked at further.
Here is a forum where the topic is about the Kentucky Print Shop that doesn't want to do business with gays. One poster calls it freedom, the Free Market, and sums it up as 'free country'.
And on another thread, the topic being Mississippi businesses putting up "We don't discriminate" stickers in protest of a 'religious freedom' that can legalize discrimination against gays, the very same poster describes the advocates of this as being akin to Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-un.
Posted by ck4829 | Fri May 9, 2014, 11:36 AM (1 replies)
Hey kids and kids-at-heart, want to do something... DANGEROUS?
"BE FOREWARNED: If you allow it at all, don't let your children to watch the Olympics without supervision."
Here's the context, it's about the commentary, that will be provided by Johnny Weir... a gay man.
AVERT YOUR GAZE, IT'S DA GAYS!
I used to think when I heard them talk about this magical indoctrination they apparently do, 'So how does it work, is it like radiation? Do they have to breathe on me? How long do I have to be around a gay person before my heterosexuality is compromised?' But just the act of SEEING gays on TV is enough to do it now? Wow. How soon before being on the same planet as a gay person can do it?
It's more than that, as everyone knows:
Gays attract hurricanes and tornadoes too.
Gays are all making plans to go to Sochi for the sole purpose of terrorizing people there.
Gays have connections to all the top scientific institutions and associations and THAT is the reason why 'brilliant' researchers like Paul Cameron are laughed at by scientists and at least one judge.
But my favorite is what I call the ABSOLUTE SCORCHED EARTH, BOYCOTT THE GAYS tactic.
You know what I am talking about, we've all seen it:
"I REFUSE to buy, support, use, or endorse any product, service, or NOUN for that matter that supports gays or is supported by gays, is gay friendly, acknowledges that gays exist, whatever."
Some famous sightings:
'Disney says gay people have loved ones and wants to give them shared insurance. BOYCOTT!' (Wiley Drake)
'Someone put ads in a gay magazine. BOYCOTT!' (American Family Association)
And the best one of all, 'Google is going against countries that have moral laws against homosexuals, they'll soon be feeling the burn of our BOYCOTT!' (Tony Perkins, the Google initiative that he was speaking against included reforming laws that allow for the execution of gays)
And yet, they are silent about gay people liking little things such as air and water. Isn't that weird?
If all you homophobes are going to worry about your adult cooties, can we also play freeze tag, freeze Boehner and company, and then just leave them where they are?
Posted by ck4829 | Thu Jan 30, 2014, 12:46 AM (0 replies)
By the way, it stands for bilateral structure, totally. Yep.
Basically, it's the idea that...
If you cut or eliminate any assistance, food stamps, welfare the poor receive then they will work harder, and they will grudgingly accept the first job they find and it will be easy to do since there are so many jobs around.
But there's another side to this curve, and that is...
If you raise taxes or increase regulations on the rich or 'job creators', then they will not work as hard, they will flee the Nazi US with it's genocidal progressive taxes, the country will become a desolate wasteland, and the US will become the live action version of Fallout and the living shall envy the dead.
Short version is:
The rich will work harder if they have even more, and the poor will work harder if they have even less.
Basically the BS Curve is a staple of right wing thought, although you also see it a lot in libertarian thought as well. You hear it from politicians, the media, probably from some of your friends and family, and more.
It's so vital to right wing talking points and the curve is a force behind so much legislation, but yet there is so little to back it.
* No empirical research
* No interviews with people affected by it ("First I was poor then the Nazi government cut my food stamps so I found a job. Then I won the lottery and now the Communist government wants to tax me for it!"
* God, not even a graph of the BS Curve exists, I mean if people can say "Hunger is a motivator for the poor!" and "The 30% tax rate for the rich is just like the Holocaust for them!" so many times and with so much fervor, then someone, ANYONE, can draw a visualization of an estimation of when the morale increases/demoralization happens vs what the poor and rich have.
People need to get out there and ask their politicians, their media, and people who talk about this what exactly the BS Curve (And remember, it means Bilateral Structure) means to them and what are the circumstances and inner workings of it.
* What is the BS Curve as how it relates to the working poor? If they find they qualify for welfare and food stamps, will they quit their jobs and live on the dole? What is the percentage chance of this happening?
* There was a case of a rich woman in Seattle, she lived in an upscale neighborhood, she also took in welfare, rent assistance, and both state and federal disability payments. Will she work harder or not as much now that the government took all of this away?
* If we cut it down even further, how does the BS Curve work in regards to the lower lower class, lower upper class, lower upper middle class, working class, lower upper class, etc.? What does giving them more vs giving them less do for them?
* Has the BS Curve been researched in other countries, if the BS Curve holds true, then countries with universal health care, robust safety nets, quality education, and other programs paid for by a healthy to substantial tax rate will be Kafkaesque nightmares that nobody would want to live in or even visit while countries that are 'every man for himself' and no taxes should be stable and friendly. What countries show the BS Curve?
And let's get a graph people, everybody needs to see the Bilateral Structure curve for themselves.
Posted by ck4829 | Tue Jan 28, 2014, 11:22 AM (1 replies)
"Our party stands for the recognition of the equality of women and the capacity of women. That’s not a war on them; it’s war for them."
So when Jim DeMint said gays and unmarried women should be barred from teaching (Here), he was obviously looking out for them, protecting them from, or doing them a service... well, because you know, FREEDOM!
Or when Todd Akin and a host of other Republicans go on about pregnancy from rape being rare to non-existent because of magical secretions or other ways to shut that whole thing down, it's NOT the 'just-world-hypothesis' that pretty much amounts to 'It wasn't rape because you are pregnant and must have enjoyed it'. No, get it RIGHT! It's some bit of super-science that us normal scientists don't have access to.
Or when Fox News went on a (air quote)whine spree(/air quote) because women won't have to pay more in health insurance because they're women, they weren't actually complaining about it or trying to cause divisions or anything like that. Paying more for some items at some times should be considered a good thing, just like when Fox News made the incredible discovery that low gas prices under Obama might be a bad thing. (Here)
So yeah women, job discrimination, pseudoscience, higher prices because of your sex, they're not BAD things, they're all things that are actually in your corner. Don't you see now or are you going to continue be blinded by all those liberals?
Posted by ck4829 | Mon Jan 27, 2014, 01:45 PM (7 replies)