Wednesday, March 30, 2005

Exposing Robert Kutter's anti-religeos zealotry / News / Boston Globe / Opinion / Op-ed / Exposing prolife zealotry

Robert Kutter is out of touch with this issue read this:

“Terri Schiavo's legacy could be the opposite of what the right intended. Americans are being reminded that the religious right and its politician-allies are zealots not just about abortion; they also want dogma to overrule science when it comes to stem cell research, contraception, and high school biology; they'd intrude on the most painful and intimate of family decisions -- all in the name of their own unchallengeable definition of God's will. Religious upsurge or not, this is not the country most Americans want.”

He is mixed up and he has fallen into the trap of trying to make a molehill out of a mountain. He is making zealots out of people who exercise their right to speak their right to be heard and to influence society. He is angry – by trying to be an angry progressive he just sounds pissed off about one part of something. He neglects the fact that people are more afraid that she is being taking from a loving mother based on hearsay than there is some intrusion into a family court case. This is not about defining God’s will this is about making sure that a family has as much time together as they are willing to have. He comes across as a kitten kicker.

It pisses me off because in his rush to put out an angry spite piece he makes an anti-anti-intellectual stereotype. The worst form of de-humanization because it pretends to enlightened. I hate to use this word and to make this comparison but he sounds like a Nazi sympathizer the way he talks about the case. We should as a people make more decisions based on religious morality on a morality that speaks to each of us as created images of God, created at the moment of conception to speak to love and hope. He would have us be means to an end. Most Americans would want Momma to take care of them.

I think his thesis is “Your existence is only as good as you make mine better”.

Tuesday, March 29, 2005

Lee Siegel's Raging Bullshit

The New Republic Online: Raging Bullshit

I now have even less of a desire to see the Contender. I do feel that Lee is now one of the most cynical and depressing writers who are paid. Read this:

“So for the Christian right, Schiavo has become something like a human antidepressant. Her plight, perhaps, makes them feel better about themselves and not Left Behind by Hollywood, or by sophisticated Northeastern elites, or by urban decadence, or urban mores, or urban wealth. And by arguing, no, insisting that her story have a happy ending, they can cheer themselves up about the society they are helping to create every day, a society in which being able to celebrate the spectacle of the weak getting pummeled, and the weak wasting away from within in a vegetative state, is the measure of one's strength. Nietzsche and Christ, together at last.”

What land does he inhabit? Where does his sweet head rest? I would really fear to be in one of his nightmares. I for one cannot understand him; it is like listening to a beautiful bird sing while on the toilet what can I do to understand? I think that he is breathing in and out resentment over last November - it is so pure and radiant. What is he saying? Am I so illiterate have I ruined some vital brain cell with diet soda? Am I in a vegetative state? Is this a state with a governor a house of representatives and homes with televisions and clocks on the wall? What does he mean I am gasping at straws please feed me something I can use something Mr. Seigal. Like this:

a society in which being able to celebrate the spectacle of the weak getting pummeled, and the weak wasting away from within in a vegetative state, is the measure of one's strength.

(wispering). “What does this have to do with Televsion?”

He forgets that he writes about Television which is like writing about listening to birds while on the toilet. He is a TELEVISION critic. HELLO Mr Seigal you have nothing to say about moral issues - alls you know bouts is tellyvishun.

You come across as a cynical selfish man with a mean streak. One imagines that you look at those signs and you opine softly to your inner child:

“who would take care of me? Who would sing to me softly, to whisper “I love you”, to gently caress my head slowly with time to spare if I were so very sick, so vulnerable. No one. I would die, to fall into the deep darkness, to be relieved of those who contend against me.”

Lee has his facts wrong – he does not understand what he is talking about – I can tell because I cannot understand what he is getting at other than he is pissed off about something.

Ted Sbardella

Monday, March 28, 2005

I will spend my Saturday night rescuing ducks

Foie Gras Photo Gallery - - Delicacy of Despair

A duck will be free thanks to this young woman. Free ducks are so very lovely if you have ever been to a city park with ducks you will thank this young woman for saving the duck. A free duck will make a park extra lovley without ducks who would chase the children from certain death from drowning in the very lovely park lake.

Lee Siegal is once more fooled

The New Republic Online: Preaching to the Choir

Lee takes a long time to get to a point of confusion. I wonder if he is really asking for help with his heroin addiction.

Abandon Hope all ye who enter here

Granite City Abortion Clinic

This is the most strange name for an abortion clinic.

Thursday, March 24, 2005

Free Beer

North America's first clinical trial of prescribed heroin begins today - CIHR

Free beer is the best way to make friends. I always have more friends when I am buying.

This will make sure that Canada is a haven for some of the Best People. Keep on doing this Canada and soon you will be known as the human waste toilet of North America. This is one more way they keep people sick. One more way they keep slavery alive and well. It is so disgusting so purile and a complete tragedy of misplaced do-goodism. They will keep people enslaved.

CIHR are slavers

Monday, March 21, 2005

How could I be Jack? He is the one that will be dead in the end of season one!!!!!!!!!!

Take the quiz: "Which LOST character are you?"

You are Jack You are fighting your inner demons, but deep down inside you know your doing what you think is right.

# Charlie (You scored 0)
# Claire (You scored 0)
# Ethan (You scored 1)
# Hurley (You scored 1)
# Jack (You scored 3)
# Jin (You scored 0)
# Kate (You scored 1)
# Locke (You scored 0)
# Michael (You scored 1)
# Sawyer (You scored 2)
# Sayid (You scored 1)
# Shannon (You scored 1)
# Sun (You scored 1)
# Walt (You scored 1)"

Monday, March 14, 2005

Michell Cottle makes a poopy

The New Republic Online: Media Glare

This is such a great read. Sort of goes down well sits in the brain like something.

What could it have meant? What what she trying to say? Was it that parents should take more responisbility and take time to really pay attention to thier children? No that was not it. Was it that maybe we should focus our attention on whatever it is. What was that? I give up.

TV sucks. I am an extream example but my children get no TV at all. Only time they get TV is when we visit our "Relations". They do not get PC time either. They do get to go in the back yard we do alow that. Also books - that we alow, as well - that we choose by handing them to our children - like prison guards handing out books in maximum security prisons. Lets see when you are sixteen you can have the real version of the Illiad till then read this...

I get no complaints maybe that is because they know they cannot have all the sugary cearal they want unless they ask very very early in the morning.

This is a blog

This is not real journalism - when I say interview that means that I talked to the guy on the phone. It was not an interview in a journalism sort of way - it was more like practice for him to do hostile phone interviews for Fox news

I am not a jounalist nope not at all. I will tell you anything you want to hear....-

Interview with the Editorial Editor for the State Newspaper Brad Warthen regarding the Put Children First initiative of Gov Sandford's.:

Interview with the Editorial Editor for the State Newspaper Brad Warthen regarding the Put Children First initiative of Gov Sandfords.:

To be frank, Brad is all about FUD. Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. Foremost he is afraid that this is the Vietnam of the Culture War. This domino falls the whole system will fall. He and the whole staff are very committed to public education that much is true and it comes out in his blind support for the current system.

He explained to me that it (the whole PCF initiative) is all very complicated and the more he explained the clearer it became, there is genuine fear in his reporting. He is not just saying that the flag has to come down or that there is some problem with video gambling he is dealing with lots of his friends and their pretensions to progressive government altruism. He is genuine in his opinions; he really thinks the sky is falling. He is not being paid for his endorsement.

Unfortunately he is dealing with lots of children and their parents, my kids.

He is trying to make a tax credit proposal into an incursion on sacred ground, he is making a taboo, he is trying to turn public funded free education into a human right that only caring progressives are allowed to meddle in.

The fact that he has to play down when he makes his opinion section is that a majority of South Carolinians do not have the same warm feeling when it comes to public education. He is trying to make an apple a saw horse.

We are a conservative state, most South Carolinians do not like what has changed in public schools over the last ten years, much less the extreme difference from twenty-five or thirty. It is not that Sandford wants to get rid of the public funded education system. He wants parents to have access to schools that support their values, not the fantasyland Sesame Street values that create poor schools. The teacher and principal cannot blow smoke up the guy's -explicative- who wants to employ the student after they graduate.

This initiative will recognize that it is the family of the student that is primarily responsible for education not the state

On Fox News, No Shortage of Opinion, Study Finds (

On Fox News, No Shortage of Opinion, Study Finds (

At least they are honest about it. You know you are getting news along with an opinion. Not just opinoion masqurading as news.

Wednesday, March 09, 2005

Brad Warther takes the wrong path

The State | 02/20/2005 | S.C. must choose its path in education

Mr. Warthen

You have crossed the line from journalist to public relations specialist. Who is paying you? Surely you have some monetary interest in swaying the population against this change otherwise you would not have such complete one-sided reporting. Are you being paid directly or indirectly through gifts or through any means? Do you gain entrance to a salon or clique by your insistence on this coverage? Are you receiving any stipends or recognition from the NEA or the Democratic party?

You state hard facts will be used but what about the fact that the money belongs to the people in the first place. That as a parent the tax money will be used to make my home school better. I am a different person my money is different because I am a parent of school age children. This is not a discussion about spending money on war in Iraq I cannot legally raise my own army for my defense. I am not some marauder making the poor public education system suffer, I am a parent who is doing what is best for my children as is my right and responsibility as an American. Whether or not I have personal sluices of money pouring in to my bank accounts on five continents is beside the point.

I seems to me that the Public Education system has problems which need to be fixed and having less or more money is not going to make a difference to me, because I do not give a flying rosy red rat round eye because that is for the bureaucrats to foul up not me.

I want my money to educate my child and that is the debate that is to me the only debate worth talking about the rest of the talking points in your “series” is you blowing smoke up my cake release valve.

I do my part for educating my children and if I ever had the misfortune to send my children to public school believe me I would be very active in making sure that my children got what they need from the tired and misunderstood collection of self-important bureaucrats known as the public education system.

Please sir remove my children – whom are mine, they are my flesh and blood, my kin, my dear ones, my “precious cargo” ,my aggravating blocks on the kitchen floor in front of the oven personal responsibilities out of Our Children Our Schools. They and their minds are my prerogative, because I love them more than you do, more than you could know so leave them out of your Our Children Our Schools series do not consider them as part of “South Carolina’s children” do not even imagine that they exist in the fairy tale fantasy land of your mind in that regard.

Schools are not jails or armies or hospitals to which we are all morally obligated to fund. Parents with children are different we have a choice once our children are grown then we do not have that choice we go back to being regular citizens with only the right to complain bitterly about the wasteland that is public education. Public schools are a free education for people that do not have the resources or same sense of responsibility to educate their children in the best way they can. The future does not depend on public education but on educating the public about choices and about giving parents choices in education. All children deserve this not just my own little ones.

You have not made your point that Sanford is against public education. In fact he is all about making it better stronger and more competent than before as far as I can tell.

You have a personal agenda, a reason for your ill feelings, as an editor that is sad and hypocritical. It is very poor journalism it is very good PR.

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

The Yellow Dog: My bible sticker for your textbook sticker |

The Yellow Dog: My bible sticker for your textbook sticker |

Why not it is only fair - if you start puting stickers on books it makes it easier to find the ones you want to burn

This is all his words:

My bible sticker for your textbook sticker

White House correspondent David Ryan

Thursday, February 10, 2005

In today's Journal-World, Phil Kline is quoted as saying that stickers emphasizing that evolution is a theory, not a fact, "would be a 'reasonable compromise' to end the political warfare about evolution that has dogged the board the past six years."

I'm glad to see the A.G. is interested in reasonable compromise.

In that spirit, I humbly suggest the following additional compromise: put a sticker on every bible stating the following:

This bible is made up of stories, not facts. Serious disagreement among biblical scholars has existed for thousands of years about these stories. The stories in this bible should not be taken as literal truth or as facts. There are hundreds of other religious stories throughout the world that contradict and call into question the stories in this bible. This bible should therefore be approached with a spirit of critical consideration.

If the A.G. starts putting such stickers on every bible sold in Kansas, I'll sign off on his evolution textbook scare tactics.

That would be a fair compromise.

Dan Cook missed the point

Free Times • Columbia's Free Alternative Weekly

Dan you have missed the point. You have wasted my time with this regurgitated mashed Jesus crap.

Jesus Himself had nothing to do with it. It was, in spite of all the thought and "facts" you put into the argument for Jesus, a victory for Democracy and the individualism - good old fashioned Americanism. America was founded on coming to know Jesus in some way this is true so the Jesus brand is still very strong I agree but to mix religion into it is stupid. Jesus sells, plain and simple and the one that can have the most Jesus can get the most out of the brand.

But the Jesus brand name was only the brand name - the ideal it sells is American Democracy. Jesus is as American as cowardice is French. It is part of our national identity

What many people did not want is to be told what to do. People hate that more than anything and the Republicans were able to make people feel comfortable with America and the Democrats were better at telling people how they should think.

People voted less for Jesus the Christ of God who raised himself from the dead and instead voted for the Jesus brand.

While that seems counterintuitive - Jesus remember has a way of inviting you to salvation and forgiveness of sins. You make that choice, it is not made for you. That is why it just makes a lot of people mad when they get this mealy mouth crap like maybe we should compromise.

Maybe we could just kind of kill the baby befor it is aborted that way it is only half dead like a zombie, yeah.

Maybe we could say it does not make any kind of sense that two men would be married - just plainer than rain that it does not make sense. You can say you are married even have a document signed by a notary but that does not mean you are married to me and to a lot of people

Maybe then that two women in a house with turkey baster kids would have two mommies - at that point maybe there should be some kind of contractual agreement for support but do not call it marriage - those children are without fathers and so they are always going to lack a father because there is no father so ther can be no marriage.

Maybe we do think that there ought to be more money for mental health and that there should be major reforms in the way that healthcare is funded, maybe there ought to be better ways to house the poor and to treat the overindulgences that keep the poor enslaved. If the Democratic party could endorse this line of reason hell yeah I would vote for Hillary Clinton.

There is a time when reason does make sense, and we can have reason attached to the Jesus brand.

Lent Starts next Sunday evening

Lent is a time for Fasting and praying:

this blog needs a bit of this huh?

1. Fast from anger and hatred.

2. Fast from judging others.

3. Fast from discouragement.

4. Fast from complaining.

5. Fast from resentment or bitterness.

6. Fast from spending money for pleasure.

Wednesday, March 02, 2005

Eric Boehlert Tears down his writing skills News | Tearing down the press

Really now Mr. Bolert, I think you are wrong – mostly because you do not understand the adversarial nature of politics. You may find that once you leave the confines of your salon you are faced with a cold wind – the cold wind of.. maybe.. could it be?..... Reality? Maybe if we stare real hard and look in the mirror and say I will not be fat, I will not be fat, I will be a thin beautiful princess then, Viola!, we are a princess. I like that you wrote:

The White House and its media allies, echoing a deep-rooted conservative antagonism toward the so-called liberal media, say they are simply countering its bias. But critics charge that the White House, along with partners like Fox News and Sinclair Broadcasting, organizations whose allegiance to the Republican Party outweighs their commitment to journalism, is actually trying to permanently weaken the press. Its motivation, they say, is twofold. Weakening the press weakens an institution that's structurally an adversary of the White House. And if the press loses its credibility, that eliminates agreed-upon facts -- the commonly accepted information that is central to public debate.

I just really do not get your point. Is this bad? Now I for one just see a uniquely American political process going on – maybe you wish for a more Russian style of journalism – maybe a car-bomb in your trunk every third week. I really see more ideas out there than less. There is more truth than fiction these days and that is good. Watergate could not bring down a president today – there would be to much “truth” getting out.

Do you know that the main paper in Tallahassee is called the Democrat – that is because it was a Democratic Party run paper back in the old days.

Now what you have written is closer to parody than it is to journalism. You sound a bit like a jilted lover explaining to your friend what really went wrong and how she is such a bitch and so on. Really who decides what the common set of facts is? Will it be you?

I will end on this thing my great-grandmother told me once when I told her I was on the school paper: She said “son, get me my teeth” then she said: “The three things a real journalist goes for are: who, what, when, and in whose underwear” By that time she could not count well anymore. Those words have stuck with me to this day a mantra I use when I read about politics - this is the yard shtick.

Tuesday, March 01, 2005

LOREN KRYWANCZYK has a problem with linguistics - On gender identity, clichés don't cut it

Lauren has a problem with that she confuses linguistics with reality. You know if you call a square a rectangle and then it must be a circle does not wash with most people even those with salamis in their skirts. Read this:

What, for example, is the template for manhood? Possible criteria, based on stereotypical signifiers of masculinity, include never crying, having a penis, facial hair, playing sports, developed musculature, a Y chromosome, short hair, and drinking beer. Few men, however, fit all, or even most, of these criteria. There is no one consistent way to "be a man" -- it must be continually performed, in different ways depending on context. Singling out these heterosexual crossdressers as abnormal or a spectacle implies we're not all doing something similar -- when in fact we are, but we're just not acknowledging it as openly as they do.

The best answer to her question is the Monty Python show. That was some funny stuff.
If she wants to add she has to subtract – so what is not a man? Is not a man more than the sum of his parts? She adds less to the discussion than she takes away. To lessen a man is to make him easier to kill and therefore she belongs in the Flash Genocide blog.

You can pretend all you want – fancy dress tea parties are ok but trying to make something funny not funny is like, well being funny. Reading this article was fun like this:

Therefore, we must begin in our use of language to recognize our own preconceived notions about gender and gender identity, and to accommodate more fluidity of gender, sex and sexuality.

What hilarity what taking herself way to seriouslyness. As a man I can understand the fluidity of my sex, but my gender is a part of grammar. I am a man therefore I am male gender just like a boat is female in its simplicity lies the primacy of purpose of all language – communication and from communication the relationship. I have a relationship with you that is beyond your body and what you do with it. That relationship now is that you provide entertainment and a chance to clarify a position using humor.

There are no fluids in grammar, there is nothing that can be done with language that will be undone later – I thought that Orwell explained this and that if you open your eyes you will see that no one outside of your social group can even understand what you are saying. this is not some creole of sexuality but a common delusion among friends.

Language cannot define sexuality; if that is so we are governed by the same forces and instincts that drive animals. Humans who use language to define sexuality are trying to justify their behavior to authorities or to victims.

Sex is non-verbal communication. Incongruent displays of sexuality cause humor.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.