BFD: Belated Apologies Make Congress Sound Like The Southern Baptist Convention

The Bigotry Lingers On...And On...And On...

From characterzinging a scarf as "terrorist" to deriding a middle name, America's prejudice population always seems to crop up - or, more definitively, crawl out of the woodwork - when you least expect it. anytime. And as ridiculous as their rants seem, the ideologies behind them will stay and stay and stay.

Michelle Malkin in a rant about Rachel Ray's scarf on a Dunkin' Donuts commercial:
“The keffiyeh, for the clueless, is the traditional scarf of Arab men that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad,” Malkin wrote in her syndicated column. “Popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant and not-so-ignorant fashion designers, celebrities, and left-wing icons.”

Of course, Malkin is insinuating that some of her readers ARE clueless because she makes a point of defining a keffiyeh in a way as only they would understand. Suffer the little children...

Twelve percent of the U.S. public still believe that Barack Obama is a practicing Muslim. He is not. But they will think so until their dying day. "And Hussein is his middle name." They will scream that out loud and post it online, print it on placards and bumper stickers. They will photoshop turbans atop his head, and say that Michelle wears a burka whenever she is at home. Remember the flack about the fist-bump? They'll make it into a secret code of some sort, more ominous and obscure than Da Vinci's mirror writing.


These people have l--o--n--g memories for hate and, unfortunately, not much else. Many of them are the same people who will pick a verse out of the Bible to use as a weapon but can't recite the Ten Commandments in order and without help. Just ask the next "The Bible says..." placard bearer. The most virulent are usually the most clueless when it comes to their own religion.

They are also a VERY long time coming with apologies. It took the Vatican over 400 years to apologize to Galileo, and the Southern Baptists over 150 years to apologize for slavery. And, apparently, there were still some Southern Baptists in Congress who still lingered on that abusive policy, making Congress even slower:

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer Tue Jul 29, 7:05 PM ET

WASHINGTON - The House on Tuesday issued an unprecedented apology to black Americans for the wrongs committed against them and their ancestors who suffered under slavery and Jim Crow segregation laws.

The resolution, passed by voice vote, was the work of Tennessee Democrat Steve Cohen, the only white lawmaker to represent a majority black district. Cohen faces a formidable black challenger in a primary face-off next week.

Congress has issued apologies before — to Japanese-Americans for their internment during World War II and to native Hawaiians for the overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom in 1893. In 2005, the Senate apologized for failing to pass anti-lynching laws.

Of course, according to people like Malkin, America has nothing to apologize for (I think she's currently trying to rebuild Manzanar internment camp into a resort for Japanese tourists.)

What good are belated apologies? Who cares if a pope cries real tears at Jerusalem's Wailing Wall for 1700 years of anti-Semitism? Is Congress acting nobly or just reiterating the fact that we've still got racists ion this country? They're not only apologizing for the ones we had, they're apologizing for the ones we've still got!

Slavery - forced internment - extreme anti-Semitism - overthrow of sovereign governments. Congress and the Religious Right can apologize now. Will they apologize for other acts of discrimination? I doubt it. At least not within the next 50-100 years.

And when they DO apologize, will there be anyone to accept those apologies?

Just a thought.




The photographer entitled
this photo:
Michelle Malkin's Dream

A Victim of Mysogeny: "The Other Mozart"

Maria Anna Mozart

When she was seven years old, her father started teaching her to play the clavier, and initially she seemed a potential child prodigy. Leopold took her and her brother on tours of many cities, such as Vienna and Paris, to exploit their talents. In the early days she sometimes received top billing and she was noted as an excellent harpsichord player and pianist. But from 1769 onwards she was no longer permitted to show her artistic talent on travels with her brother, as she had reached a marriageable age. (wikipedia)

Anna Maria Mozart was a gifted musician eventually shadowed by her brother, Wolfgang Amadeus. In his youth, he adored his older sister, but their father Leopold encouraged young Wolfgang only. Even for the times, however, Anna seemed unduly complacent: giving up the man she loved to a marriage of her father's choosing. She even allowed her father to rear her only son in deference to him. While Wolfgang constantly quarreled with his father, Anna acquiesced.

She married only once: to a wealthy magistrate named Johann Baptist Franz von Berchtold zu Sonnenburg. He was a widower with five children and Anna Maria bore him three more.

After the death of her husband she became (what else?) a music teacher. From all accounts she became blind and poor of health. She died on October 29, 1829. She was (for the time) the advanced age of 78.

Question: if her father and society had not forced this timid little girl to stay home until she was married to the right man, how far could she have gone in the music world? Mozart wrote some piano compositions for her. References in his letters to her show us that she composed music as well. None of her compositions, however, have survived.

How dim of a life she led compared to what she could have been we will never know.

The Face and Voice of the Working Man

Jimmy Hoffa, 1959
Originally uploaded by PopCollector

When Jimmy Hoffa disappeared, did the voice of the working man disappear as well? Today we hear a lot about the middle class family, but who does it consist of? Do the teamsters still exist? Of course they do, (with Jimmy's son as president)but their clout has been reduced to a meager lobby in Washington, a lobby that trails far behind pharmaceuticals and the NRA.

Hoffa was one of the few men whose disappearance was as sensational as his life: after 33 years, his remains have never been found. Stories and brags about his demise raged for years. They haven't really stopped. Only several things support the fact that he is now dead: today he would be 95-years-old and his connections to the mob as well as the people he crossed, well, what do you think the odds are?

"We don't get no respect!" #1 - Gay Marriage According to Rick Santorum

Well, not ALL queers are perfect spellers!

"They Don't Have Anything To
PROVE They're As Good As We Are!"

Rick Santorum to Pew Forum:

They have no studies. They have no information whatsoever about what it would do to the moral ecology of the country, y what it would do to religious liberty, what it would do to the mental and physical health of children -- nothing. They've made no case. Basically the case they've made is, "We want what you want, and therefore you should give it to us."Pew Research Forum (Shannon Price Minter)

There is not one study showing children are harmed in any way by having lesbian or gay parents. To the contrary, as Mary Cheney recently stated in response to criticisms of her decision to have a child with her female partner that every piece of remotely responsible research that's been done in the last 20 years has shown there's no difference between children raised by same-sex parents and children raised by opposite-sex parents. What matters is that children are raised in a stable loving environment.

O.K., I'll bite on the second one: what the hell is "moral ecology"? Santorum, I think, has coined his own phrase, but it's bogus. Maybe he means morals about the ecology? If so, what do they have to do with gay marriage? Do male plants want to marry other male plants? If so, what about plants and animals that contain both sexes or have role reversals? Do seahorses want same-sex rights? I think Santorum thinks he's being clever with his phrase and oh so deep...in it.

What would a man marrying a man do to religious liberty? Nothing. Again, Santorum is talking about two different things. Or maybe HIS definition of religious liberty is not freedom of religion, but freedom of a religion to espouse anything it wants without criticism. Santorum is really talking about the freedom of pulpit pimps to spew hate speech, thereby endangering others who do not share the same view.

"Mental and physical health of the children". If the Religious Right were not so deliberate in their hate by banning books educating children (e.g. "Heather Has Two Mommies") and were not so diligent in pointing out gays as "sinners" and "pedophiles" children of gay parents would have an easier time at school, don't you think?

And as far as "wanting" is concerned: what gays want are RIGHTS and not necessarily four kids, a mortgaged McMansion and two "hers and hers" SUVs.

Santorum goes on to say that for Christians, it is difficult waging the culture war because if they oppose same-sex marriage they are perceived as "intolerant" "bigots""haters". WOW! I didn't know that! Are those righteously arrogant pastors, preachers, ministers of God really Christians? And here I was, all the this time, just calling them "stupid." YES! In the case of religion, one bad apple CAN spoil a whole bunch of people. Today's ministers of the Religious Right are proud of how many people they command, as Rod Parsley would put it, as "warriors for Christ." To them, the culture war is a jihad with a "take no prisoners" policy.

So Santorum is ready to fight. He'll be the man of iron in the war. But with feet of clay.

Yes, this photo is wrong but too funny to pass up. It's a "cartooned" version of Santorum's concession speech after he lost his bid for a second term as senator.
Note: several commenters made observations that were, well, direct: why does the girl have a doll that's dressed exactly like her? And why does the boy look so ...strange? Is this the American family Santorum is fighting for? Makes you want Gomez Addams to run for office just for the sake of normalcy.

"We Don't Get No Respect": #2 Celebrities Aren't REALLY Citizens of the U.S. Are They?

These Aren't Real People! They're Just Here To Entertain Us, Right?

Celebrity Political Opinions

Hey, who cares what George Clooney or that wacko Johnny Depp thinks?

America has made it's own bed as far as celebrities go. Celebrities aren't real unless they sit down to dinner with them in their trailer. But celebrities are also PROPERTY for Americans to do with as they wish. If celebrities have lives, they are to submit them to the American public for approval or else...they won't be celebrities much longer. So if a celebrity has an opinion, their creators will listen enraptured (after all they DID create them!) or dismiss them.

The online magazine POLITICO recently interviewed Barbra Streisand. The interview is, of course, a set up on my part to reveal how some people view celebrities voicing political opinions. Most of those people are conservatives who believe that Hollywood has poisoned our minds with its liberalism.

A lot of folks object to "Hollywood celebrities" participating in political discourse. Aside from pure disagreement over certain issues, why do you think there's such a backlash when you or other well-known performers speak your mind?

On a very basic level, many people think celebrities have too much already so we shouldn’t be entitled to our political opinions. Also, the other side objects to the fact that we might be listened to. But, I see myself first and foremost as a citizen of this country. And I am outspoken about the issues I care about like healthcare, global warming, the war in Iraq, energy independence, education, poverty and so on.

I think we are all lucky to live in a country where people have the constitutional right to voice their opinion and speak their mind without punishment or penalty. Everyone should exercise that right, because it engages people in the political process and forces our candidates to be clear about their stances on important issues affecting all Americans.

Comments:

- Streisand, like alot of Americans, only look for the (D) behind the candidates name in deciding who they should vote for. She a product of the same "brainwashing" that most folks in Hollywood get from the liberal socialists that own it and manage it........sad.

- Babs, Springsteen, Sir Elton and likes should keep their political views at the kitchen table and not use their popularity to spread political nonsense.

- Another left wing nut Citizen of the world loon

"We Don't Get No Respect": #3 Does It Really Matter What Other Countries Think of Us?

That We're Dangerously Stupid

Pew Research Center:

More Americans now say that the United States is less respected in the world than it has been in the past, and a growing proportion views this as a major problem for the country. More than seven-in-ten Americans (71%) say that the United States is less respected by other countries these days, up from 65% in August 2006.

For the first time since Pew began asking this question in 2004, a majority of Americans now sees the loss of international respect for the United States as a major problem. The percentage of Americans saying the loss of international respect is a major problem has risen from 43% in 2005 to 48% in 2006 and 56% currently.

The most recent national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted May 21-25 among 1,505 adults, finds that majorities of Democrats (81%), independents (72%) and Republicans (60%) believe that the United States has lost global respect in recent years.

Since our diplomatic dimwit has destroyed at least 100 years of diplomacy and good will, please do not be surprised with the Japanese tourists who want to see if Manzanar is still standing; or the French tourists who want to taste "freedom fries"; the English tourists who ask directions to the Salem Witchcraft trials or the South African tourists who want to see the "Wild West Show".

But most of all, don't be surprised if they are suspicious and afraid of you.

While I was on a cruise during the 2004 election, I noticed that a lot of Eurpopeans on the ship were all talking about the election. I asked: "Why are you so engrossed in this election?" Their was was short, but direct: "We need to see if you are going to elect a war president or a peace president."

Our image is one that was surmised by the United Nations back in 2001 when they labeled us a "Rogue Nation." The U.N. was canny enough to realize that Bush wanted war even BEFORE he came to office. We were also kicked off the security council.

Religionists (especially Christofasctists) hate the U.N. and don't care about our international image. After all, unless the country is thoroughly Christian, they don't count.

Do they?

Just a thought.

McCain Campaign Gushes Over Oil - Just Like What's-His-Name

One is definitely a Maverick. The other may not be (as much he'd like people to think he is)

It's 1:00AM. I usually don't post anything on Sunday evening/Monday morning. Hey, it's my one day off! But I just read this and just couldn't help but comment on it:

Industry Gushed Money After Reversal on Drilling

By Matthew Mosk

Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 27, 2008; Page A10

Campaign contributions from oil industry executives to Sen. John McCain rose dramatically in the last half of June, after the senator from Arizona made a high-profile split with environmentalists and reversed his opposition to the federal ban on offshore drilling.

The article goes on to say that even oil executives treated George "Native Son" Bush differently: they gave money much earlier to Bush's campaign, and that it was natural that they would give additional campaign funding to someone who might unlock the oil resources previously barred by environmentalists.

True.

However, McCain's campaign staff is shouting "character assassination" when people find out the "surge" in giving happened almost immediately after his speech on opening those resources. Oh my! Bush may be stupid - arrogantly so - but McCain isn't that bright either: at least not on his timing. His campaign should have held the money for later disclosure or request that it be given in small increments. Not $1.1 million in a matter of days. The complicity is so obvious that it almost smacks of Cheney-ism. Of course, Obama's stance against the oil industry gave McCain's campaign contributions a boost, but a rise in contributions three times the size of previous months, and after the speech of June 16th is almost begging for some answers. And those answers won't come from McCain or his campaign.

If the allegations are true (and I think that's possible), McCain is getting to look more like George Bush than the old "maverick" people have come to admire.

Another tidbit:

According to Congressional Quarterly's Voting Studies, in 2007 McCain voted in line with the president's position 95 percent of the time – the highest percentage rate for McCain since Bush took office – and voted in line with his party 90 percent of the time.

Just a thought.