Just now I clicked on a link that took me to a poll on the Fox News Web site, and I noticed (for the first time, really) their logo. I've long thought that their motto was "fair and balanced," (we can debate the veracity of that), but it turns out that it's actually "Fair & Balanced," with an ampersand.
And I quote, directly from my AP Stylebook: "The ampersand should not otherwise be used in place of and."
Philosophical inclinations aside, I simply can't place my trust in a news organization that can't follow basic rules of punctuation. Unless "Fair" and "Balanced" are the names of people who work within the Fox News organization, the use of the ampersand is just plain wrong.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
N.C. GOP clubhouse: members only
My first thought when I read this morning that the N.C. Republican Party is considering closing its primary - a thought that popped into my head before I finished the first paragraph - was, "Oh, this is a very bad idea."
The rationale for closing the primary - allowing only registered Republicans to vote in primary elections - is that open primaries dilute the pool, meaning that the Republicans who win and go on to the general election aren't as conservative as they would be without the influence of unaffiliated voters, who tend to be more moderate. To which I say, "And this is a problem?"
Apparently is IS a problem for many actual Republicans, who think that many of the candidates they've nominated aren't true-believery enough, like that Commie John McCain (sarcasm alert). The problem is that, in this state, registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by over 800,000 voters. And there are 1,3 million voters who are registered as unaffiliated - 22 percent of all registered voters. Altogether, registered Republicans are only 31 percent of voters in North Carolina.
As things stand now, a registered unaffiliated voter can vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary. This is a big part of the appeal to voters who want to register, but don't want to allign themselves with any particular party. They can tack toward one party or another from election to election without having to change registration. The open primaries make a place for a lot of people who would otherwise not get involved in politics at all.
And these free agents, who really do impact elections, are unaffiliated largely because they're allergic to partisan politics. So, telling them, "You can't vote in this primary election unless you stamp yourself with an 'R'" doesn't strike me as the best way to reach them.
Moreover, restricting your primary so that you produce candidates who are going to be more conservative than 70 percent of registered voters are comfortable having seems to me to be a perfect recipe for losing every election from now on. I suppose it depends on one's goals - is the N.C. GOP interested in finding and electing candidates that will truly represent the needs of a majority of constituents, or only in growing progressively more partisan?
The rationale for closing the primary - allowing only registered Republicans to vote in primary elections - is that open primaries dilute the pool, meaning that the Republicans who win and go on to the general election aren't as conservative as they would be without the influence of unaffiliated voters, who tend to be more moderate. To which I say, "And this is a problem?"
Apparently is IS a problem for many actual Republicans, who think that many of the candidates they've nominated aren't true-believery enough, like that Commie John McCain (sarcasm alert). The problem is that, in this state, registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by over 800,000 voters. And there are 1,3 million voters who are registered as unaffiliated - 22 percent of all registered voters. Altogether, registered Republicans are only 31 percent of voters in North Carolina.
As things stand now, a registered unaffiliated voter can vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary. This is a big part of the appeal to voters who want to register, but don't want to allign themselves with any particular party. They can tack toward one party or another from election to election without having to change registration. The open primaries make a place for a lot of people who would otherwise not get involved in politics at all.
And these free agents, who really do impact elections, are unaffiliated largely because they're allergic to partisan politics. So, telling them, "You can't vote in this primary election unless you stamp yourself with an 'R'" doesn't strike me as the best way to reach them.
Moreover, restricting your primary so that you produce candidates who are going to be more conservative than 70 percent of registered voters are comfortable having seems to me to be a perfect recipe for losing every election from now on. I suppose it depends on one's goals - is the N.C. GOP interested in finding and electing candidates that will truly represent the needs of a majority of constituents, or only in growing progressively more partisan?
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Dan Savage on Carrie Prejean
Savage Love's Dan Savage, a gay husband and father, feels sorry for Carrie Prejean. He sees her as a flawed human being pushed into being a Christian icon by people with their own agenda, which is kind of how I feel about her:
"I thought Perez Hilton went too far when he labeled Prejean a bitch for her response to his question. But I quickly came around to Perez's position—she is bitch—after Prejean leapt into bed with Maggie Gallagher and the National Organization for Marriage... Anyway, back to Prejean: I thought Perez Hilton went too far when he labeled Prejean a bitch for her response to his question. But I quickly came around to Perez's position—she is bitch—after Prejean leapt into bed with Maggie Gallagher and the National Organization for Marriage... It seemed like a transparent effort on Prejean's part to cash in, to parlay her loss at the Miss USA pageant into a career as a spokesmodel for the religious right. Prejean's sudden passion for anti-gay politicking seemed insincere and opportunistic—she hadn't been publicly religious, politically active, or rabidly homophobic until after the pageant—and that's why she drew the scorn of mean-spirited bloggers everywhere.
And now we have proof that the person Prejean pretended to be after that pageant—the good Christian girl with a strong moral code who was chosen by God to stick it to the homos—doesn't jibe with the person she was before the pageant, i.e. a highly sexual and sexually active young woman with breast implants and a string of ex-boyfriends to her name... And honestly—now that this is all over—I feel kind of sorry for Prejean. She thought she was being attacked by All Gays and Lesbians Everywhere (AGLE) after one gay dude, Perez Hilton, called her name. And then Maggie and NOM and the conservative Christian movement offered her a chance to get back at the homos and make herself a huge pile of money in the process. The praised her, advised her, and pretended to be her friends. All she had to do was play the martyr and tell her story. But when her real story got out—when those pictures and videos got out—Maggie and NOM and her new friends dropped her. Perez abused her, Maggie used her, and now she's done."
"I thought Perez Hilton went too far when he labeled Prejean a bitch for her response to his question. But I quickly came around to Perez's position—she is bitch—after Prejean leapt into bed with Maggie Gallagher and the National Organization for Marriage... Anyway, back to Prejean: I thought Perez Hilton went too far when he labeled Prejean a bitch for her response to his question. But I quickly came around to Perez's position—she is bitch—after Prejean leapt into bed with Maggie Gallagher and the National Organization for Marriage... It seemed like a transparent effort on Prejean's part to cash in, to parlay her loss at the Miss USA pageant into a career as a spokesmodel for the religious right. Prejean's sudden passion for anti-gay politicking seemed insincere and opportunistic—she hadn't been publicly religious, politically active, or rabidly homophobic until after the pageant—and that's why she drew the scorn of mean-spirited bloggers everywhere.
And now we have proof that the person Prejean pretended to be after that pageant—the good Christian girl with a strong moral code who was chosen by God to stick it to the homos—doesn't jibe with the person she was before the pageant, i.e. a highly sexual and sexually active young woman with breast implants and a string of ex-boyfriends to her name... And honestly—now that this is all over—I feel kind of sorry for Prejean. She thought she was being attacked by All Gays and Lesbians Everywhere (AGLE) after one gay dude, Perez Hilton, called her name. And then Maggie and NOM and the conservative Christian movement offered her a chance to get back at the homos and make herself a huge pile of money in the process. The praised her, advised her, and pretended to be her friends. All she had to do was play the martyr and tell her story. But when her real story got out—when those pictures and videos got out—Maggie and NOM and her new friends dropped her. Perez abused her, Maggie used her, and now she's done."
Friday, November 13, 2009
Where no religious body seeks to impose its will
I'm getting seriously pissed off at the extent to which the Catholic Church has lately inserted itself into political issues. In the last few weeks, the church leadership has called out pro-choice Congressmen, publicly attempted to influence the issue of abortion coverage in health care reform legislation and threatened to cancel its contracts with Washington, D.C., if the district okays same-sex marriage.
First of all, since when do religious groups openly lobby political figures? I'm not talking about the passive-aggressive stuff we've seen for years now. I'm talking about a bishop telling Rep. Patrick Kennedy that he shouldn't be allowed to receive sacraments unless he starts voting the way the bishop wants him to. (Yes, out of all the pro-choice Catholics in Congress, Bishop Tobin goes after the one whose last name is guaranteed to grab headlines. Total coincidence, I'm sure.)
It wasn't even 50 years ago that Rep. Kennedy's uncle, running for president at the time, gave a speech to a group of nervous Protestant ministers about his views on the relationship between personal faith and public governance. You should really read the whole thing, but one section is particularly relevant, given recent events:
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote ... where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all."
My other objection is on purely moral grounds. I am so sick and frakking tired of alleged Christians who behave as though their top priority is making other people's lives as miserable as possible. So, Washington Diocese, you're going to stop sheltering the homeless and finding homes for orphans as long as two men can get partner benefits, really? You think THAT'S what Jesus wants you to do??? You're going to help trash legislation that would relieve suffering for the sick and poor because some woman somewhere is taking advantage of her Constitutionally protected right to control the timing and number of her pregnancies? That's your idea of social justice? (What would Jesus do? Not take his ball and go home, I'd bet.)
But what's the most disturbing is the church's implied threat that elected officials who don't vote exactly as they're told will be exiled from salvation - as if Bishop Tobin and his ilk have any say in the matter. I suppose this is my Protestant bias showing, but I have always believed and always will believe that no earthly bureacracy gets to dictate what my beliefs should be - that's between me and God. So, for Bishop Tobin to tell Kennedy or any other Catholic that receiving communion is contingent on casting Bishop Tobin-approved votes is not just a gross intrusion into government - it's also an abominable overstepping of bounds into Kennedy's personal relationship with God. Who the hell does he think he is?
I understand that the Catholic Church's official positions on many things are counter to mine - reproductive freedom and LGBT equality being two. And I don't expect them to keep their mouths shut. Bishop Tobin and any other minister can counsel and preach on their understanding of Scripture 'til the cows come home. But what they *don't* get to do is a) threaten people elected by the public to govern civic affairs, or b) threaten ANY member of the congregation with some Earth-bound litmus test.
First of all, since when do religious groups openly lobby political figures? I'm not talking about the passive-aggressive stuff we've seen for years now. I'm talking about a bishop telling Rep. Patrick Kennedy that he shouldn't be allowed to receive sacraments unless he starts voting the way the bishop wants him to. (Yes, out of all the pro-choice Catholics in Congress, Bishop Tobin goes after the one whose last name is guaranteed to grab headlines. Total coincidence, I'm sure.)
It wasn't even 50 years ago that Rep. Kennedy's uncle, running for president at the time, gave a speech to a group of nervous Protestant ministers about his views on the relationship between personal faith and public governance. You should really read the whole thing, but one section is particularly relevant, given recent events:
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote ... where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all."
My other objection is on purely moral grounds. I am so sick and frakking tired of alleged Christians who behave as though their top priority is making other people's lives as miserable as possible. So, Washington Diocese, you're going to stop sheltering the homeless and finding homes for orphans as long as two men can get partner benefits, really? You think THAT'S what Jesus wants you to do??? You're going to help trash legislation that would relieve suffering for the sick and poor because some woman somewhere is taking advantage of her Constitutionally protected right to control the timing and number of her pregnancies? That's your idea of social justice? (What would Jesus do? Not take his ball and go home, I'd bet.)
But what's the most disturbing is the church's implied threat that elected officials who don't vote exactly as they're told will be exiled from salvation - as if Bishop Tobin and his ilk have any say in the matter. I suppose this is my Protestant bias showing, but I have always believed and always will believe that no earthly bureacracy gets to dictate what my beliefs should be - that's between me and God. So, for Bishop Tobin to tell Kennedy or any other Catholic that receiving communion is contingent on casting Bishop Tobin-approved votes is not just a gross intrusion into government - it's also an abominable overstepping of bounds into Kennedy's personal relationship with God. Who the hell does he think he is?
I understand that the Catholic Church's official positions on many things are counter to mine - reproductive freedom and LGBT equality being two. And I don't expect them to keep their mouths shut. Bishop Tobin and any other minister can counsel and preach on their understanding of Scripture 'til the cows come home. But what they *don't* get to do is a) threaten people elected by the public to govern civic affairs, or b) threaten ANY member of the congregation with some Earth-bound litmus test.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
It's Veterans Day, y'all!
At 11 a.m. on Nov. 11, 1918, the war we now call World War I entered a cease-fire, or armistice (to be officially ended the next year with the Treaty of Versailles). President Wilson designated Nov. 11, 1919, as Armistice Day, and called for citizens to pause in their business for a few minutes at 11 a.m. Through the years, the day of remembrance moved from a year-to-year proclamation to an observance made in some states in late October, but since 1978, Veterans Day has been set at Nov. 11.
So, go hug a vet, will ya?
And, on a personal note, thanks to my Grandpa Butner, PawPaw Comer, my bad-ass step-dad and all of the millions of men and women who've sacrificed more than I'll ever comprehend. I just have no words.
So, go hug a vet, will ya?
And, on a personal note, thanks to my Grandpa Butner, PawPaw Comer, my bad-ass step-dad and all of the millions of men and women who've sacrificed more than I'll ever comprehend. I just have no words.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Johnny Cash, American protest singer
Salon.com has a must-read about Johnny Cash's artistic activism on behalf of Native Americans, chiefly his 1964 album "Bitter Tears." Cash doesn't get enough credit for this kind of thing. Now that he's dead, dutifully memorialized in Hollywood film and celebrated by hipsters, it's easy to ignore the radicalism in songs like "Man in Black":
Well, you wonder why I always dress in black,
Why you never see bright colors on my back,
And why does my appearance seem to have a somber tone.
Well, there's a reason for the things that I have on.
I wear the black for the poor and the beaten down,
Livin' in the hopeless, hungry side of town,
I wear it for the prisoner who has long paid for his crime,
But is there because he's a victim of the times.
I wear the black for those who never read,
Or listened to the words that Jesus said,
About the road to happiness through love and charity,
Why, you'd think He's talking straight to you and me.
Well, we're doin' mighty fine, I do suppose,
In our streak of lightnin' cars and fancy clothes,
But just so we're reminded of the ones who are held back,
Up front there ought 'a be a Man In Black.
I wear it for the sick and lonely old,
For the reckless ones whose bad trip left them cold,
I wear the black in mournin' for the lives that could have been,
Each week we lose a hundred fine young men.
And, I wear it for the thousands who have died,
Believen' that the Lord was on their side,
I wear it for another hundred thousand who have died,
Believen' that we all were on their side.
Well, there's things that never will be right I know,
And things need changin' everywhere you go,
But 'til we start to make a move to make a few things right,
You'll never see me wear a suit of white.
Ah, I'd love to wear a rainbow every day,
And tell the world that everything's OK,
But I'll try to carry off a little darkness on my back,
'Til things are brighter, I'm the Man In Black.
Well, you wonder why I always dress in black,
Why you never see bright colors on my back,
And why does my appearance seem to have a somber tone.
Well, there's a reason for the things that I have on.
I wear the black for the poor and the beaten down,
Livin' in the hopeless, hungry side of town,
I wear it for the prisoner who has long paid for his crime,
But is there because he's a victim of the times.
I wear the black for those who never read,
Or listened to the words that Jesus said,
About the road to happiness through love and charity,
Why, you'd think He's talking straight to you and me.
Well, we're doin' mighty fine, I do suppose,
In our streak of lightnin' cars and fancy clothes,
But just so we're reminded of the ones who are held back,
Up front there ought 'a be a Man In Black.
I wear it for the sick and lonely old,
For the reckless ones whose bad trip left them cold,
I wear the black in mournin' for the lives that could have been,
Each week we lose a hundred fine young men.
And, I wear it for the thousands who have died,
Believen' that the Lord was on their side,
I wear it for another hundred thousand who have died,
Believen' that we all were on their side.
Well, there's things that never will be right I know,
And things need changin' everywhere you go,
But 'til we start to make a move to make a few things right,
You'll never see me wear a suit of white.
Ah, I'd love to wear a rainbow every day,
And tell the world that everything's OK,
But I'll try to carry off a little darkness on my back,
'Til things are brighter, I'm the Man In Black.
Still Whining
Carrie Prejean has a book out, and apparently a years-old sexting tape. And I really don’t care. But I DO care about defending myself.
Carrie, honey, you’re young and you’re going to make many more mistakes in your life. You got fired from your beauty queen job because you violated your contract. You’re still in the public eye because you choose to be. And, for the record, here’s how this particular leftist “attacked” you last May:
It's easy to defend people that you approve of. It's not easy for me to defend Carrie Prejean. I think her views on same-sex civil rights are elementary and based on a faulty interpretation of both scripture and law. I think she's letting herself be used by bigots who wouldn't give her the time of day if she weighed 300 pounds and had bushy eyebrows. But I also think that, as poor as her reasoning is, she has every right to her opinion. I also think that the nudie-picture/implant shaming of her is as sexist as when Laura Ingraham tried to shut down Meghan McCain by calling her "plus-sized." As Feministing wrote today, it's not okay to fight homophobia with misogyny.
So stop your whining. I never did anything to you.
Carrie, honey, you’re young and you’re going to make many more mistakes in your life. You got fired from your beauty queen job because you violated your contract. You’re still in the public eye because you choose to be. And, for the record, here’s how this particular leftist “attacked” you last May:
It's easy to defend people that you approve of. It's not easy for me to defend Carrie Prejean. I think her views on same-sex civil rights are elementary and based on a faulty interpretation of both scripture and law. I think she's letting herself be used by bigots who wouldn't give her the time of day if she weighed 300 pounds and had bushy eyebrows. But I also think that, as poor as her reasoning is, she has every right to her opinion. I also think that the nudie-picture/implant shaming of her is as sexist as when Laura Ingraham tried to shut down Meghan McCain by calling her "plus-sized." As Feministing wrote today, it's not okay to fight homophobia with misogyny.
So stop your whining. I never did anything to you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
