Diane Rehm on her daily program on NPR this morning was discussing, along with her guests, the comments Rush Limbaugh made about Sandra Fluke last week in which Rush called Ms. Fluke a "slut." Diane's comment was that "As a woman, I am appalled" about Rush's comments. One of her callers came on the air and said that a lot of people are wondering why more isn't being made of Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin a "cunt, twat, and bimbo." The caller went on to say that this is because Sarah Palin is a politician and is therefore in the public eye on purpose, or words to that effect, while Sandra Fluke is a private citizen who was merely testifying before Congress, not making her life as a public figure. Ms. Rehm said, "Yes, there is a big difference."
Seriously, Ms. Rehm? In your eyes, there is a "big difference?" Are you flat out kidding me? Let me pose two hypothetical scenarios for you, Ms. Rehm, and your answer to these scenarios will reveal whether you are truly a hypocrite or are just so dense you don't recognize your own hypocrisy.
First scenario: If a commentator, be it Rush Limbaugh, Bill Maher, Howard Stern, or anybody else, were to call a female Democratic politician (Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi just to name a couple) anything like "slut," "twat," "cunt," "bitch" or "bimbo," would that be ok in your eyes because after all, that woman is a professional politician and is therefore in the public eye on purpose? What would be the difference between calling a Democratic female politician such names, and calling Sarah Palin such names? Do you think it would be ok?
Second scenario: If Sandra Fluke were to run for public office and win, and become a Congresswoman or a Senator for example, would it then be all right in your eyes for Rush Limbaugh to call her a "slut" because now she's a professional politician and therefore is open for verbal attack?
Seriously, Ms. Rehm, your blindness and hypocrisy are what is "appalling." Get a clue, please.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Monday, March 5, 2012
Gay mom who embarrassed her son
A few months back, a gay mom had her little boy approach Michelle Bachman and forced him to tell the Congresswoman that "my mom is gay and she doesn't need fixed."
First of all, what kind of mom does that to her little boy? That child was so uncomfortable and embarrassed, that mom ought to have been ashamed of herself for doing that to a child, especially her OWN child.
Second of all, the Bible very plainly teaches that ALL of us are broken and "need fixed." This applies to gay, straight, man, woman, old, young, everyone across the board. We are ALL broken and need fixed, and Jesus is the one who fixes us. And yes, homosexuality is a form of brokenness. And there are MANY people who have successfully come out of the gay lifestyle and found freedom in Christ, just as there are people who gain control of alcoholism through AA, or drug addiction through places like the Betty Ford Clinic, etc. To refuse to seek help is to continue to turn a blind eye to your own problem. But when you involve your child and embarrass him to tears at a public event, that's incredibly low and appalling. For that alone, this mom "needs fixed."
First of all, what kind of mom does that to her little boy? That child was so uncomfortable and embarrassed, that mom ought to have been ashamed of herself for doing that to a child, especially her OWN child.
Second of all, the Bible very plainly teaches that ALL of us are broken and "need fixed." This applies to gay, straight, man, woman, old, young, everyone across the board. We are ALL broken and need fixed, and Jesus is the one who fixes us. And yes, homosexuality is a form of brokenness. And there are MANY people who have successfully come out of the gay lifestyle and found freedom in Christ, just as there are people who gain control of alcoholism through AA, or drug addiction through places like the Betty Ford Clinic, etc. To refuse to seek help is to continue to turn a blind eye to your own problem. But when you involve your child and embarrass him to tears at a public event, that's incredibly low and appalling. For that alone, this mom "needs fixed."
Signing contracts under duress - Obamacare loses?
I love that the Institute for Justice has filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court pointing out that contracts signed under duress have never been legal. Forcing people to buy an insurance contract they may not wish to buy, and forcing insurance companies to insure anyone, no matter what pre-existing condition they may have, is putting both parties in the contract under duress by the government. Anthony Kennedy, you're the swing vote - are you listening? How can the Supremes uphold Obamacare in light of this salient fact?
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Rush Limbaugh is right! The Sandra Fluke controversy
The attacks on Rush Limbaugh and his comments on Sandra Fluke (who as far as I am concerned should be Sandra Flake) are uncalled for and worse than anything he said about her. Does no one understand the true meaning of "separation of church and state?" (A phrase, by the way, which does NOT appear in the Constitution.) This is meant to protect religious institutions from the government, not to protect the government from religious institutions!! Duh!!
This young woman chose to go to a Jesuit college. They have strongly held religious beliefs, and it is NOT the federal government's place to be FORCING a religious institution to go against their religious beliefs and pay for or provide something to someone that the religious institution feels is morally wrong. If Sandra Flake (Fluke, whatever) chose to go to a Jesuit college, she implicitly is choosing to abide by the belief and value system of that college. If she is not willing or able to abide by their belief system, she is free to choose a different college. No one is forcing her to go to this college.
Is she going to this college to get an education, or so she can sleep around with all the fellas on campus? Is she going there to hit the books or to hit the sack with the guys? She could choose to spend $3000 a year on things that would help her with her education, not on birth control that would, as our President would say, "help her to avoid being punished with a baby." Our taxpayer dollars should not go to help someone avoid the consequences of sexual promiscuity, or, as Rush so aptly put it, "being a slut." Abstinence is not impossible, it costs nothing, and it doesn't get you talked about on the radio. Nobody ever died from abstinence, nobody ever got an STD from abstinence, and nobody ever got unwantedly pregnant from abstinence. You're going to school to get an education, not to be sexually promiscuous at taxpayer expense. Grow up, Sandra.
LEAVE RUSH LIMBAUGH ALONE.
This young woman chose to go to a Jesuit college. They have strongly held religious beliefs, and it is NOT the federal government's place to be FORCING a religious institution to go against their religious beliefs and pay for or provide something to someone that the religious institution feels is morally wrong. If Sandra Flake (Fluke, whatever) chose to go to a Jesuit college, she implicitly is choosing to abide by the belief and value system of that college. If she is not willing or able to abide by their belief system, she is free to choose a different college. No one is forcing her to go to this college.
Is she going to this college to get an education, or so she can sleep around with all the fellas on campus? Is she going there to hit the books or to hit the sack with the guys? She could choose to spend $3000 a year on things that would help her with her education, not on birth control that would, as our President would say, "help her to avoid being punished with a baby." Our taxpayer dollars should not go to help someone avoid the consequences of sexual promiscuity, or, as Rush so aptly put it, "being a slut." Abstinence is not impossible, it costs nothing, and it doesn't get you talked about on the radio. Nobody ever died from abstinence, nobody ever got an STD from abstinence, and nobody ever got unwantedly pregnant from abstinence. You're going to school to get an education, not to be sexually promiscuous at taxpayer expense. Grow up, Sandra.
LEAVE RUSH LIMBAUGH ALONE.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
"The Black Stallion and the Lost City"
Another new "Black Stallion" book by Steve Farley is coming out next summer. I've been a loyal fan of Alec and the Black since I first discovered the books at age 9, which was 40 years ago (no, I don't care who knows how old I am.) But Steve Farley's last book as he attempts to follow in his father's footsteps, "The Black Stallion and the Shape Shifter," was just WEIRD, and the plot of this book as outlined on Amazon sounds even weirder. (Alec and the Black find themselves about to be sacrificed to flesh-eating mares in a city lost in time???)
Why does Steve Farley write weird fantasy plots? His father did a science-fiction plot in "The Island Stallion Races," and he himself got into weird fantasy in "The Black Stallion's Ghost" (Alec lost in the swamp in Florida, and were his encounters with this weird Kovi just hallucinations or real? That book creeped me out as a 1o-year-old and to this day it's one of my least favorite of the senior Mr. Farley's books) and "The Black Stallion Legend," which was just bizarre. I would rather read more traditional horse stories involving Alec and the Black, not weird fantasy tales that are totally improbable and off the wall.
That being said, I will, of course, be dumb enough to buy this book and add it to my collection simply because it is a Black Stallion book, but I have a strong feeling I'm not gonna like this one any more than I did "Shape Shifter." Please, Steve, write a book that is more plausible and less science-fictioney (did I just make up a word?)
Why does Steve Farley write weird fantasy plots? His father did a science-fiction plot in "The Island Stallion Races," and he himself got into weird fantasy in "The Black Stallion's Ghost" (Alec lost in the swamp in Florida, and were his encounters with this weird Kovi just hallucinations or real? That book creeped me out as a 1o-year-old and to this day it's one of my least favorite of the senior Mr. Farley's books) and "The Black Stallion Legend," which was just bizarre. I would rather read more traditional horse stories involving Alec and the Black, not weird fantasy tales that are totally improbable and off the wall.
That being said, I will, of course, be dumb enough to buy this book and add it to my collection simply because it is a Black Stallion book, but I have a strong feeling I'm not gonna like this one any more than I did "Shape Shifter." Please, Steve, write a book that is more plausible and less science-fictioney (did I just make up a word?)
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Sorry, I have to be grammar cop here
It drives me crazy to hear people say "in regards to" or "with regards to." The correct phrase is "in regard to" or "with regard to," singular, no "s" on the end.
And please, remember the apostrophe does NOT mean something is plural. The plural of "Smith" is "Smiths," NOT "Smith's." The plural of dog is "dogs," NOT "dog's." Etc.
Thank you. I feel better now.
And please, remember the apostrophe does NOT mean something is plural. The plural of "Smith" is "Smiths," NOT "Smith's." The plural of dog is "dogs," NOT "dog's." Etc.
Thank you. I feel better now.
Leave NPR alone!!
Ever since Juan Williams was so ridiculously fired by NPR for comments that were taken out of context (the people who run NPR can now challenge the people who took Miss California's crown away from her for "hypocrites of the year"), there has been a loud outcry for NPR (as well as PBS) to be defunded. There is a loud cry as well by people who seem to think NPR is a "left-wing commie network" that shouldn't even be on the air in the first place. My admittedly disgusted reaction to this is - have these people even bothered to LISTEN to NPR???
I don't approve of the way Juan Williams was fired or even THAT he was fired - taking comments out of context, and then insinuating the man needs to see a psychiatrist, is totally appalling. As I said, the people who made this decision are hypocrites who were obviously looking for an excuse to fire Mr. Williams because he (gasp) does commentary for FOX News. (Which proves FOX News is fair and balanced, because he's extremely liberal in his viewpoints, and they have him on regularly and allow him to have his say, along with other liberals like Bob Bechtel.)
But the NPR network itself is hardly as terrible as the people who seem to want it, not just defunded, but taken completely off the air, would think. Very little of NPR's programming is even political in nature at all. Most of it is "slice of life" stories, "Americana" stories, "everyday lives" stories.
In recent weeks, I have heard - Scott Simon interview Michael Caine on "Weekend Edition" about Caine's life and career - Scott Simon also interviewed Laura Hillenbrand, who wrote the book about Seabiscuit a few years ago, about Zenyatta - A story was done about Mark Twain's autobiography being published this year 100 years after his death, as he had requested - Alan Alda was interviewed about his career and his famous dad Robert Alda - "Storycorps" on Friday mornings is simply Americans talking about their ordinary lives - "Science Friday" has something for anyone who is interested in any form of science, from stories about trying to find a cure for diabetes to stories about the Mars Rover, the Hubble Telescope, etc. - "Car Talk" on the weekends features the always entertaining brothers Tom and Ray giving advice on car repairs with a generous dose of humor - the game show "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" is fun to listen to - "A Prairie Home Companion" features Garrison Keillor's wonderful and humorous tales of "my hometown, Lake Woebegone, where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average."
Yes, some of the programming on NPR is political, and leans left. Diane Rehm on Fridays does her "weekly news roundup", usually with a panel of liberal commentators, and Diane herself is obviously liberal judging from her own comments. But so what? I'm a conservative bordering on libertarianism, but I don't think a radio network should not be allowed to have liberal commentary or liberal talk-show hosts! I listen to Diane Rehm's show, and most of the time her subject matter isn't political at all, and when she DOES have political topics, I'm capable of listening to her liberal point of view, even though I'm a conservative, without thinking she or the network should be taken off the air! There is room on the radio airwaves for BOTH a Rush Limbaugh AND a Diane Rehm.
Point is - NPR's programming is about 90% NOT political in nature. The vast majority of their programming has nothing to do with politics and is, to me at least, very interesting and mentally stimulating to listen to. Should the network be defunded? Well, when we are so deeply in debt as a country, and we need to cut spending wherever possible, the answer is probably "yes." But should NPR be taken off the air because they're "liberal," as some conservatives are angrily demanding? My answer is a resounding "no!" Not any more than FOX should be taken off the air for being conservative!!!
Leave NPR alone! Defund it if we must (if they have to sell commercials to stay on the air, so be it), but stop criticizing it for being something it's not.
I don't approve of the way Juan Williams was fired or even THAT he was fired - taking comments out of context, and then insinuating the man needs to see a psychiatrist, is totally appalling. As I said, the people who made this decision are hypocrites who were obviously looking for an excuse to fire Mr. Williams because he (gasp) does commentary for FOX News. (Which proves FOX News is fair and balanced, because he's extremely liberal in his viewpoints, and they have him on regularly and allow him to have his say, along with other liberals like Bob Bechtel.)
But the NPR network itself is hardly as terrible as the people who seem to want it, not just defunded, but taken completely off the air, would think. Very little of NPR's programming is even political in nature at all. Most of it is "slice of life" stories, "Americana" stories, "everyday lives" stories.
In recent weeks, I have heard - Scott Simon interview Michael Caine on "Weekend Edition" about Caine's life and career - Scott Simon also interviewed Laura Hillenbrand, who wrote the book about Seabiscuit a few years ago, about Zenyatta - A story was done about Mark Twain's autobiography being published this year 100 years after his death, as he had requested - Alan Alda was interviewed about his career and his famous dad Robert Alda - "Storycorps" on Friday mornings is simply Americans talking about their ordinary lives - "Science Friday" has something for anyone who is interested in any form of science, from stories about trying to find a cure for diabetes to stories about the Mars Rover, the Hubble Telescope, etc. - "Car Talk" on the weekends features the always entertaining brothers Tom and Ray giving advice on car repairs with a generous dose of humor - the game show "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" is fun to listen to - "A Prairie Home Companion" features Garrison Keillor's wonderful and humorous tales of "my hometown, Lake Woebegone, where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average."
Yes, some of the programming on NPR is political, and leans left. Diane Rehm on Fridays does her "weekly news roundup", usually with a panel of liberal commentators, and Diane herself is obviously liberal judging from her own comments. But so what? I'm a conservative bordering on libertarianism, but I don't think a radio network should not be allowed to have liberal commentary or liberal talk-show hosts! I listen to Diane Rehm's show, and most of the time her subject matter isn't political at all, and when she DOES have political topics, I'm capable of listening to her liberal point of view, even though I'm a conservative, without thinking she or the network should be taken off the air! There is room on the radio airwaves for BOTH a Rush Limbaugh AND a Diane Rehm.
Point is - NPR's programming is about 90% NOT political in nature. The vast majority of their programming has nothing to do with politics and is, to me at least, very interesting and mentally stimulating to listen to. Should the network be defunded? Well, when we are so deeply in debt as a country, and we need to cut spending wherever possible, the answer is probably "yes." But should NPR be taken off the air because they're "liberal," as some conservatives are angrily demanding? My answer is a resounding "no!" Not any more than FOX should be taken off the air for being conservative!!!
Leave NPR alone! Defund it if we must (if they have to sell commercials to stay on the air, so be it), but stop criticizing it for being something it's not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)