Thursday, October 29, 2009
Liberals vs Conservatives by ~BlameThe1st on deviantART
“Both side like to make a lot of noise when the other camp has problems, but they also like to sweep it under the rug when the camera points to them. Really, when was the last time you saw politicians hold their own candidates or party accountable for things they said and done?” - WhatYouOughtToKnow.
One of the problems I have with politics today is the childish quarreling between the political parties. One party claims that the other party is responsible for everything that is wrong with this country, and vice versa. Liberals claim conservatives are to blame. Conservatives claim liberals are to blame. Personally, this picture portrays my feelings on the issue.
I think the problem with our country is that we want to blame everything on the opposing party without taking responsibility ourselves. And we also tend to ignore what the opposing party has to say, under the impression that we’re right and they’re wrong (or evil).
George Washington wrote about this “spirit of party” in his Farewell Address:
“It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”
In short: fighting with ourselves is stupid and destructive.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Normally I roll my eyes when someone alleges racism or discrimination. Not that either one doesn’t exist; but most accusations seem to be nothing more than someone crying wolf.
But the students in the story below managed to provide tangible evidence of the alleged discrimination.
A Chicago nightclub barred entrance to six out-of-town black college students while admitting nearly 200 white classmates, the students allege.
In a complaint filed with the Chicago Human Rights Commission, the Illinois Attorney General, the U.S. Department of Justice and other organizations, six black Washington University students from St. Louis weren't allowed inside the Original Mother's bar on the grounds they violated its dress code by wearing baggy jeans, CNN reported Monday.
One of the students, senior class president Fernando Cutz, said in the complaint that a white and black student exchanged clothes in a test of the nightclub's policy, and the white student wearing baggy jeans was admitted, the U.S. broadcaster said.
A bar representative told The Chicago Tribune that the establishment was taking the issue "very seriously," and was carrying out an internal investigation with employee discipline possible.
Cruz told CNN the visit to the bar on Chicago's Gold Coast was part of a senior class trip, and had been arranged in advance by the student class board.
Looks like discrimination to me.
We may have a black president in office, but racism still exists in this country.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
Ann Coulter appeared last night on The Joy Behar Show where she claimed “Every presidential assassination or attempted presidential assassination was committed by some left-wing loon, communist, anarchist, communitarian…or they had no politics as all.” In other words: left-wing extremists.
Of course she’s wrong. Not all presidential assassinations were committed by left-wing extremists. Both Abraham Lincoln and James A. Garfield were assassinated by right-wing extremists: Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth who opposed abolition and suffrage for freed slaves; Garfield by Charles Guiteau, a member of a far-right faction of the Republican Party who believed he was commanded by God.
Yet Ann isn’t completely wrong. The other two presidents assassinated—William McKinley and John F. Kennedy—were killed by left-wing extremists: McKinley by Leon Czolgosz, an anarchist influenced by socialist and anarchist propaganda; Kennedy by Lee Harvey Oswald, a Marxist who spent several years in the Soviet Union and tried to immigrate to Cuba.
And she’s not entirely wrong about attempted presidential assassinations, many which were attempted by left-wing extremists:
· Franklin Delano Roosevelt was shot at five times by Giuseppe Zangara who would later tell police, "I have the gun in my hand. I kill kings and presidents first and next all capitalists."
· Richard Nixon was threatened by Samuel Byck, who planned to fly an airplane into the White House, but committed suicide when confronted by police. According to Wikipedia, Byck believed that that “the government was conspiring to oppress the poor.”
· Gerald Ford was nearly shot by Sara Jane Moore, a Marxist who was strongly influenced by the revolutionary Symbionese Liberation Army.
Yet Ann Coulter was wrong to imply that all presidential assassinations and attempted assassinations were committed by liberals. Conservatives have the same capacity to commit terrorism as do liberals. The problem isn’t an ideology itself, but rather an ideology taken to an extreme. All extremists are evil, be they liberal or conservative.
Ironically, Joy was shocked when Ann suggested that liberals could be murderers, but was unmoved when, on the same night, left-wing author Gore Vidal shared his desire to kill George W. Bush, to which she simply replied, "Well, it's too late anyway."
I wonder how Joy would have reacted had a left-wing columnist suggested that all presidential assassinations were committed by conservatives. Knowing Joy, she probably would have nodded her empty carrot top head in agreement.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
It’s no secret that Bill Maher despises Glenn Beck. In a guest appearance on The Joy Behar Show, Maher called Beck a “bimbo” who would someday be caught “dressed as a woman or playing with his feces.”
But last Friday on his show Real Time, Maher stated that he is opposed to the swine flu vaccine. He claimed that “we need a debate” since the vaccine “is not a settled science like global warming.” He even posted on his Twitter account that “If u get a swine flu shot ur an idiot.”
Obviously, he never said that he agrees with Beck, who is also opposed to the vaccine; but it’s still funny how Maher who thinks Beck is an idiot shares the same opinion as him.
Perhaps even opposing minds think alike.
Compare for yourself:
Monday, October 19, 2009
I graduated from a private college where men were required to wear khaki pants and polo shirts, and women had to wear skirts. I didn’t care for the dress code, but it didn’t bother me that much. As a private college, my college had every right to enforce their dress code the way they saw fit. If students didn’t like the dress code, they could always attend another college.
That said, I have to side with this college’s recent dress code.
An all-male college in Atlanta, Georgia, has banned the wearing of women's clothes, makeup, high heels and purses as part of a new crackdown on what the institution calls inappropriate attire.
No dress-wearing is part of a larger dress code launched this week that Morehouse College is calling its "Appropriate Attire Policy."
The policy also bans wearing hats in buildings, pajamas in public, do-rags, sagging pants, sunglasses in class and walking barefoot on campus.
However, it is the ban on cross-dressing that has brought national attention to the small historically African-American college.
The dress-wearing ban is aimed at a small part of the private college's 2,700-member student body, said Dr. William Bynum, vice president for Student Services.
"We are talking about five students who are living a gay lifestyle that is leading them to dress a way we do not expect in Morehouse men," he said.
Before the school released the policy, Bynum said, he met with Morehouse Safe Space, the campus' gay organization.
"We talked about it and then they took a vote," he said. "Of the 27 people in the room, only three were against it."
There has been a positive response along with some criticism throughout the campus, he said.
So the demographic which the new dress code is supposedly aimed at doesn’t have a problem with the new dress code? Only three are against it? Where’s the controversy?
I’m all for freedom of expression, but I’m also for common decency. Being told not to wear sunglasses indoors, to not wear your pants down to your underwear, and to wear shoes on campus seems to be common sense rules.
As for the “no dress-wearing” rule, I wouldn’t think that would discriminate against homosexuals as it would transsexuals. Then again, the desire to wear women’s clothing doesn’t seem to elicit special privileges. If students don’t like the dress code, they can always attend another college.
And if your college has to pass a rule telling you not to wear your pants so low that others can see your underwear, you’re wearing your pants way too low.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Meghan McCain gets news coverage because she shows a little cleavage on her Twitter account? Seriously? I've seen girls dress racier on the streets. This is nothing! People are reacting as though she posed nude or something.
Oh well, on with the hullabaloo:
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
"Blame The 1st" Blog Splash by ~BlameThe1st on deviantART
I've recently created my own Deviantart account where I hope to upload drawings, poetry, and journal entries. I don't know how to draw, but I do have my opinions; and I wish to share those opinions in my very own (though crudely drawn) editorial cartoons. Expect the first pieces of art in a few days.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Yesterday marked another Columbus Day—the day most people celebrate to commemorate Columbus’s discovery of America, and a day other people hate for commemorating an alleged genocidal maniac.
Political correctness tends to smear American history. It claims American is a country built on slavery, genocide, and oppression. It claims the Founding Fathers were hypocrites for claiming all men were created equal while owning African slaves. It claims the Confederate flag is a racist symbol which represents slavery and white supremacy. And it also claims Columbus was a genocidal maniac whose crew slaughtered, raped, and enslaved the natives they encountered. According to political correctness, Christopher Columbus is just as evil as Adolf Hitler, and as such should not be commemorated with his own day.
Maybe Columbus wasn’t the noble explorer schoolchildren picture him to be, and perhaps his evil deeds should be mentioned along with his good. However, he was the first European to discover America. Maybe there were people living in America centuries before Columbus discovered it, and perhaps the Vikings were technically the first Europeans to discover America, but if it were not for Columbus, Europeans would never had known about the New World, and America would never have been founded.
And let’s not pretend that the natives his crew oppressed were the noble savages of myth. The natives of the Caribbean were warmongers known for practicing cannibalism and human sacrifice. Moreover, the natives who were sold into slavery actually practiced slavery themselves (how ironic). This does not excuse Columbus for what his crew did, but it does show that the natives were no better than Columbus’ crew, if not worse.
Like him or not, Columbus is an important figure in American history, and it is his discovery, not his life, which we commemorate every October 12th.
In closing, here are a few videos made by P.C. zombies:
Sunday, October 11, 2009
I won it for not being George Bush. To be perfectly honest, this award was a complete surprise, as I have only not been George Bush for 9 months.
And he had only been in office for two weeks when he was nominated for the prize.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Apparently, Obama will be rewarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Many question whether he truly deserves it or not. But we all know that he does. After all, he’s the president who single-handedly rescued our economy from recession, reformed healthcare, ended the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, established peace in the Middle East, shut down Guantanamo Bay, and ensured equal rights for homosexuals.
Wait! He didn’t do any of that. So why did he win the Nobel Peace Prize again?
Oh, I see. We’re giving Obama an ‘A’ for effort. I guess you don’t have to do anything to earn yourself a Peace Prize. All you have to do is try. At least Obama did his best.
A recent post from Stop the ACLU reflects my sentiments exactly:
Just after winning the Nobel Peace Prize, the President was remarking to Press Secretary Gibbs that he had a great idea for a movie. As he started to explain, the phone rang with news that he’d won the Academy Award for Best Picture.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Apparently forcing restaurants to post calories on their menus doesn’t influence customers to make healthier choices, according to one study:
Skip to next paragraph The study, by several professors at New York University and Yale, tracked customers at four fast-food chains — McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken — in poor neighborhoods of New York City where there are high rates of obesity.
It found that about half the customers noticed the calorie counts, which were prominently posted on menu boards. About 28 percent of those who noticed them said the information had influenced their ordering, and 9 out of 10 of those said they had made healthier choices as a result.
But when the researchers checked receipts afterward, they found that people had, in fact, ordered slightly more calories than the typical customer had before the labeling law went into effect, in July 2008.
The findings, to be published Tuesday in the online version of the journal Health Affairs come amid the spreading popularity of calorie-counting proposals as a way to improve public health across the country.
“I think it does show us that labels are not enough,” Brian Elbel, an assistant professor at the New York University School of Medicine and the lead author of the study, said in an interview.
Somehow I’m not surprised. Tobacco companies have been forced to place warning labels on their cigarette packs, and that hasn’t stopped people from smoking.
Forcing restaurants to post calories on their menu items seems superfluous. Most restaurants already have nutritional information posted in their restaurants, on their websites, and on their food containers.
Even if the calorie counts did influence customers to make healthier choices, many of the healthier choices aren’t really that healthy. For example, a Premium Caesar Salad with Crispy Chicken (without salad dressing) has only 30 less calories and 1 gram less fat than an Original Chicken Sandwich, and a Fruit n’ Yogurt Parfait (without granola) has only 20 less calories and 1.5 grams less fat than a vanilla ice cream cone.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
There are those on the Right who are angry. They think I am turning this great country into something that resembles the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. But that's just not the case. Because when you look at my record, it's very clear what I've done so far: And that is--nothing!
I brought a white police officer and a black professor together for a beer. Who else can do that? You're right: Oprah--but no one else!
So all you frothing Glenn Beck supporters put away those tri-cronered hats and photoshopped pictures of me as the Joker. Because if I see anymore of this hateful rhetoric, I'm going to have to take drastic action. Nah, not really!
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins appeared Wednesday on The Colbert Report to discuss his new book The Greatest Show on Earth. As with most guest appearances on Colbert’s show, the discussion was completely farcical and pointless.
|The Colbert Report||Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c|
But despite the incoherent babbling of Colbert, Dawkins made a few points which should be addressed.
There is no purpose to life, but it’s not an accident.
But can something have no purpose without being an accident? Isn’t an accident something that does not happen on purpose?
purpose: 1 a : something set up as an object or end to be attained.
accident: 1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity : CHANCE <met by accident rather than by design>.
The definition of accident by itself provides the answer: “met by accident rather than design.” Since Dawkins does not believe in design, he must therefore believe in accident.
In order for something to have purpose, it must have been “set up as an object or end to be obtained.” If something does not have purpose, it was not set up, but was rather “unforeseen,” “unplanned,” and lacking “intention or necessity,” thus making it an accident. Therefore, either something has purpose and is not an accident, or it does not have purpose and is an accident. Dawkins cannot have it both ways.
If life does not have purpose as Dawkins proposes, it must have happened by accident; otherwise, it has purpose. And if it has purpose, it must have been set up. And if it had been set up, then someone or something must have set it up. And the only thing that could have set up life is a First Cause—i.e.: God. Therefore, God exists because life has purpose and did not happen by accident.
I’ve given you the evidence for evolution. Where is your evidence for God?
Aw, yes: Dawkins poses his famous straw man argument: Evolution is true; therefore God does not exist.
Let’s assume that there is sufficient evidence to prove evolution true. Does that mean God does not exist? It may mean creationism is false, and therefore the God of creationism does not exist. It may mean a literal interpretation of Genesis is false, and therefore the God of a literal Genesis does not exist. But it does not mean that God—even the God of the Bible—does not exist. Who is to say that God could not have used evolution to create life? Who is to say that Genesis must be interpreted literally rather that figuratively? Just because evolution is true does not mean God does not exist.
As for the evidence of God, allow me to quote Albert Einstein: “I believe in [a God] who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists.”
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Last night, I tuned into The Joy Behar Show on CNN Headline News to watch Behar talk with Ann Coulter (a woman I hate to love). I had no idea that her first guest would be Bill Maher (a man I love to hate), who engaged in his usual douchebaggery:
What do you make of all this sort of hate speech going on? I don't want to mention names but Glenn Beck is watching my show right now and it's possible that he's trying to think of new ways to yell at Obama and cause people to be raging and angry. What do you make of all of that?
Hate speech? Of course! Conservatives like Glenn Beck don’t hate Obama because of his policies: they hate him because of his skin color. That has to be it!
Then Maher answered with his usual “Conservatives are stupid” shtick.
And then you have the Republicans which are just a bunch of religious lunatics, Flat Earthers, Civil War re-enactors and bimbos.
Can Maher go anywhere without making fun of religion? I guess not.
And what’s with the “civil war re-enactors” comment?
The Republican party in the last 20-30 years has gone toward this anti-intellectual type of person…They just don't know anything. They're bimbos. [Beck]'s a bimbo and he's a crazy one. I'm telling you: it is not that long before we're going to find Glenn Beck dressed as a woman or playing with his feces or something.
I said it before in an earlier post, and I’ll say it again in this one: liberals do not wish to engage in intelligent discourse. They simply want to demonize and ridicule the opposing party. Liberals are smart; Conservatives are dumb. It’s typical liberal arrogance.
As for his “Beck will dress as a woman and throw feces” comment, well, at least it’s more humane than Bette Midler’s “Beck will cause civil war and genocide” comment.
Remember when I said I didn’t expect Rep. Alan Grayson to apologize for his “Republicans want you to ‘Die Quickly’” comments?
Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., resisted GOP calls Wednesday to apologize for saying Republicans "want you to die quickly if you get sick."
The freshman congressman said the statement, which he made in brief remarks Tuesday night on the House floor, was triggered after he read an article by Harvard scientists claiming 44,000 Americans die every year because of a lack of health insurance.
"The speech I gave (Tuesday) was meant to underline the fact that we can't wait any longer. America really needs affordable, comprehensive, universal health insurance," Grayson said in an interview. "And the speech (Tuesday night) was, I think, motivated by my sense of urgency."
Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., drafted a "resolution of disapproval" saying Grayson's conduct was "a breach of decorum and degraded the integrity and proceedings of the House." The language in Price's resolution is similar to that used by the Democrats to rebuke Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., who shouted "You lie!" during President Obama's address to Congress on Sept. 9.
Once again, I do not see a comparison between Grayson and Wilson. Grayson was given the privilege to say what he said no matter how offensive people thought it was; Wilson was not. Wilson interrupted the President’s speech, which directly goes against decorum.
Then again, claiming that your opposing party is a bunch of heartless fear mongers who could care less if you die without health insurance probably goes against decorum as well.
Price delayed its introduction to give Grayson another chance to apologize to the Republican House leadership. Grayson took the floor again Wednesday but refused to apologize to the Republicans. Referring to the Harvard study, he said, "I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in America."
He compares the lack of government healthcare to the Holocaust! When PETA compares slaughterhouses to the Holocaust, that’s considered anti-Semitic. When pro-lifers compare abortion clinics to the Holocaust, that’s considered anti-Semitic. So now that Grayson has compared the lack of government-run healthcare to the Holocaust, what should we consider him?
I’m just saying.