Standard right wing hypocrisy. It's OK for ME to go to college and get an education, but if YOU go to college, you'll magically turn into a godless hippy liberal bent on indoctrination.

Don't go to college and be "indoctrinated" but sit there and cheer while I make my speech and indoctrinate you so you vote for me so I can indoctrinate you with the bible.

Once again, the right uses words it has no clue what it really means. Like freedom, like traditional marriage, but the definitions all follow one central theme:

Right wing definition of traditional marriage: I can marry who I want, but not you.
Right wing definition of freedom: I can do things that infringe on your freedom, but not you.
Right wing definition of reproductive rights: I can have an abortion, but not you.
Right wing definition of education: I can get an education, but not you.

Common theme = selfishness personified

Dang. I am beginning to think that this is actually a craven *viral *commercial for Taco Bell.

And Pepsi. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C00AhDksQ_c&feature=related

Hipster looking dudes saying how much they love their [insert national specific fast food here].

No down side to getting someone to make this ad -- looks personal, so no chance of backlash from those who support reproductive rights. Just pure advertising straight to the heart of passionate loyal people.

Maybe both these are exactly what they say they are. But personally, I don't trust corporate America, advertising companies or the internet.

Just another example of how fucked the right-wing agenda is with wanting "small-government, more free-enterprise". Corporations are the most fucked up entities and they want to embrace more of it in privatizing everything under the sun probably including patenting your reproductive rights at birth for an extremist christian agenda.

Definition 'of' and 'what' are two different things. Common use versus written defs. Take the word "Majority" and in the dictionary it says the "most," and in popular culture people use it to mean most. However, try telling that to an English teacher, and she flunks you for it... Majority apparently applies only to voting. So let's not pretend that "feminist" or "feminism" means the archaic definition that was placed into Wiki because it's most politically correct.

Feminists lost their grasp on equal rights because they had too many members who want greater rights. Most feminists are good people--but they fucked up when they let bad people in their group.

Ie., Feminists allow these women to take their mantra by not disclaiming them in a loud enough manner.

So yeah--epic analogy success.

And feminists may not follow a book, but their doctrines might as well be written on stone tablets. "And the first commandment is that all women shall be paid equally to men regardless of profession. All men shall have no say in court, as it pertains to marriage matters. This I shall command, in the name of the Great Vag, all shall spread my word from their lips."

And sorry, you're right. Feminists shouldn't worry about "right" or "wrong," or, about decency when it comes to matters like this. No, like you note, they should be worried about money, I mean, equal pay. When you put it like that, I like feminists less and less.

>> ^hpqp:

Wow, talk about analogy fail.
According to what definition of "feminism" are these women feminists? Oh yeah, your own prejudicial stereotype (one which seems quite common unfortunately). As for comparing it to Christianity, you are way, way off.
Christians have a book of doctrine; some follow it closely (like this guy), and are called "fundamentalists". Others distance themselves from some of its many moral failings, and are called "moderates". What Harris criticises about the moderates is that, as a silent majority, they lend credence to the loud, hateful fringe (this criticism applies just as well to muslims and jews). And why do they hesitate to take a firm stance against the fundamentalists? Because they know that, religion-wise, the fundamentalists are right, and that they - the moderates - are the half-hearted christians.
I don't think I have to spell out the other half of your failed analogy, by now the point should be quite clear. Next time, you might want to read up on your social history before giving lessons. For starters, have some wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism
As for complaining about feminists not swarming to the podiums to call out this display of extremely bad taste, don't you think they have much more important things yet to do? You know, like fighting for equal pay, reproductive rights, against job discrimination, sexual harassment, domestic abuse, etc etc, not to mention the battles to be fought in developing and/or religion-ridden countries?

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Yes--the feminists will complain in some small way. That's not the problem--but it is.
What he is saying is that most feminists won't jump on the podium and do what's right. They will burn their bras on a march, they will call out small injustices when it's a guy versus a woman everyday of their lives, but they will give this five minutes and then move on without a care in the world.
This is equal to Dan Savage and why he hates moderate Christians who don't scream about the far right who bash gays. Those that don't stand up more than just "Oh, it's wrong."
I don't hate feminists, but these ARE feminists. They just happen to be the far RIGHT feminists that don't belong. Just like the far RIGHT Christians... But then, I have been around true feminists like these women...
And hp, so you have changed your mind? Are far right Christians now not of the religious, but are mere dicks because they don't represent the movement? I doubt it... Just something to think on my friend. A bit of food for ye mind.

Wow, talk about analogy fail.

According to what definition of "feminism" are these women feminists? Oh yeah, your own prejudicial stereotype (one which seems quite common unfortunately). As for comparing it to Christianity, you are way, way off.

Christians have a book of doctrine; some follow it closely (like this guy), and are called "fundamentalists". Others distance themselves from some of its many moral failings, and are called "moderates". What Harris criticises about the moderates is that, as a silent majority, they lend credence to the loud, hateful fringe (this criticism applies just as well to muslims and jews). And why do they hesitate to take a firm stance against the fundamentalists? Because they know that, religion-wise, the fundamentalists are right, and that they - the moderates - are the half-hearted christians.

I don't think I have to spell out the other half of your failed analogy, by now the point should be quite clear. Next time, you might want to read up on your social history before giving lessons. For starters, have some wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

As for complaining about feminists not swarming to the podiums to call out this display of extremely bad taste, don't you think they have much more important things yet to do? You know, like fighting for equal pay, reproductive rights, against job discrimination, sexual harassment, domestic abuse, etc etc, not to mention the battles to be fought in developing and/or religion-ridden countries?



>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Yes--the feminists will complain in some small way. That's not the problem--but it is.
What he is saying is that most feminists won't jump on the podium and do what's right. They will burn their bras on a march, they will call out small injustices when it's a guy versus a woman everyday of their lives, but they will give this five minutes and then move on without a care in the world.
This is equal to Dan Savage and why he hates moderate Christians who don't scream about the far right who bash gays. Those that don't stand up more than just "Oh, it's wrong."
I don't hate feminists, but these ARE feminists. They just happen to be the far RIGHT feminists that don't belong. Just like the far RIGHT Christians... But then, I have been around true feminists like these women...
And hp, so you have changed your mind? Are far right Christians now not of the religious, but are mere dicks because they don't represent the movement? I doubt it... Just something to think on my friend. A bit of food for ye mind.

Here's a few things that the Tea Party of my neighbor to the north, Montana, is pushing:

- Ban abortions
- Limit sex education
- Nullifying any federal law or right they don't like

Yeah, the party of 'liberty' wants to take away reproductive rights, restrict education about human sexuality, and nullify any other rights they deem unnecessary.

But I assure you, the Montana teabaggers have their priorities straight. They also want to:

- Declare global warming to be good for business
- Legalize hunting big game with a spear

You see, spear hunting is an urgent issue, and the Tea Party is going to make sure that it gets addressed by the state legislature because the state has oppressed spear hunters for far too long. This is important business, requiring tax dollars for the time and effort for this crucial debate.

Oh, and guess what they have to say if you don't like their agenda: "I say to you: 'This is America: Love it or leave it,'" shouted Rep. William McChesney, during the sovereignty declaration debate.

It's "liberty" on their terms, or get the fuck out.
>> ^Ryjkyj:

QM, how can you endorse people who want to enforce, by law, rules about who can get married, who can raise children, what women do with their bodies, and who should and shouldn't be able to negotiate the compensation for their labor...
But the president's wife suggesting that we might start a program to educate kids about the dangers and benefits of nutrition is just the height of tyrannical nanny-ism...

Those are all interesting "common goods" that I would love the Right Wing to actually embody.

It is only individual freedom and responsibility, I've noticed, when it is your freedom and somebody else's responsibility. (I can provide anecdotal evidence in proof of that statement, from the lives of my super conservative relatives.)

Being fiscally responsible is a great thing -- so why the continuing huge tax cuts to the wealthy, where it has been proved over and over that those cuts will not help the economy and only drive us deeper in debt? And all that crap about death panels, when it has been proven that when folks plan for end of life issues, huge amounts of unnecessary, expensive and ultimately painful prolonging of life treatment are avoided?

Following the Constitution. You support the ACLU, right? They fight for the Constitution all the time. The Right Wing doesn't own the Constitution, it belongs to all of us. Including the checks and balances inherernt in the document.

Free markets. Huh. Well, Teddy Roosevelt was conservative, but he recognized that truly "free" markets are not in the best interests of the country. Unless you like lead paint in children's toys?

Life is lived on a curve -- with the far right and the far left holding positions that try to drag the middle around.

We're on the same curve, though.

Liberals don't disagree with your list of common goods. They just want to implement them in differing ways. For example -- individual freedom. Libs get behind that in a big way for personal choices in the bedroom. Gay marriage and the reproductive rights are individual freedoms, right? But Libs get a little torqued when someone else's individual freedom may cost innocent lives -- hence their concern over gun control.

All this is off topic, though. Tucker Carlson is a raving red baboon butt of a human being who cares nothing for a reasoned conversation when he can make a living out of his Monkey Island antics. (Primate Island, I know, that just isn't as funny.)

The fact that Jon Stewart hates him makes me very happy.



>> ^lantern53:

Which part of the 'right wing drivel' is BS?
The part about individual freedom and responsibility?
The part about fiscal responsibility?
The part about following the Constitution, which is the founding document of this country?
The part about free markets?

Governmental interference with reproductive rights is annoying. So bizarre to force their citizens to look abroad for sperm donors.

Reminds me of Japan's folk superstitions that force Japanese citizens to fly to the US if they want an organ transplant.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

"We all know that the bible is written by humans. We all know that evolution is obvious."

Do we? I seem to be running into quite a few people who don't know that. You make a reasonable case for moderation but I for one believe in the cause of atheism as an important one:

It's important to prevent creationism from being taught as science in schools.

It's important that religious zealots don't prevent women from exercising their reproductive rights.

It's important that we don't let evangelicals proclaim that the United States is a "Christian Nation" and obscure the lines between church and state

It's important that we stand up against using some crappy passages in Leviticus to condemn Gays as abominations

>> ^Sagemind:
I still don't understand this Liberals Vs. Conservatives thing.


It is, to some extent, a form of class warfare, or religious war. And it is, to a large extent, total bullshit and dangerously divisive. Yet, it is the political reality of living in the USA.

I know it depends on which side of the aisle you're on, but the liberals are mainly about progress and the conservatives are mainly about keeping things the same, or turning back the clock and making them the way that they used to be.

This is the basic definition of the terms in relation to reproductive rights, gay rights, and spending and oversight regarding the environment, the military, big business, education, social security...the list goes on.

It's not likely to change any time soon, and I can see the distinct possibility of things getting much worse.

Not such a good Signal to Noise Ratio here, let's see what we can do about that.

McCain is BAD at being a candidate, so before Palin was named I would have said that a McCain win would either be cheating (not so outlandish given '00 and '04), or that it displayed a massive systematic race bias in the US, either of which would have, quite appropriately, resulted in people making a stink.

Palin is GOOD at being a candidate, and she rekindles the culture war, which works to their favor. I don't see sexism having much to do with Palin, except as a GOP get-out-of-jail-free-card, as she appeals so strongly to "social conservatives", liberals will hate her for what she stands for way before her genitals enter the picture.

Most red staters don't have a pragmatic reason to dislike Obama, he plans to lower their taxes, bring their sons home from Iraq, and spend away America's collective fortune slower then McCain is likely to do it. He does not favor gay marrage, is not a "Secret Muslim", but he is undeniably black.

Most blue staters have half a dozen reasons to lothe Palin, Reproductive rights, Abstinence only sex ed, creationism, anti-environmentalism, animal cruelty, oil-industry friendly. For them her sex is far outweighed by all this, but her sex does confuse some people who are still in the "but she's female and that's good" camp, but these people will still end up opposing her on pragmatic grounds.

I see racism as more of a detriment in this election, even during the primaries, then sexism, so in that sense it's worse to be a racist, because it's more common, and therefor more of a problem.

In a more general sense I think racism is worse because it is a bias based on a distinction without a difference, whereas sexism is a bias based on a distinction with an, arguably irrelevant, difference. Sex is real and identifiable, race is simply a meaningless abstraction. Being a racist requires believing in race, which does not exist, so since it isolates people further from what is demonstrably true, it is worse.

I am not suggesting that sexism is not bad, and I think Hillary addressed the sexism there was in a way that fed it, and made it a real problem for her, where she could have faced it down more effectively by being a bit more subtle. Palin is positively rolling in sexism, by using the "she can't be attacked she's a woman" defense, feeding the sexism in a way that helps her side, and getting a lot of press attention out of it at the same time to steal Obama's thunder, and trying to steal the free publicity that comes with being the "ground breaking" candidate.

"John McCain announced that he was running for president to confront the "transcendent challenge" of the 21st century, "radical Islamic extremism," contrasting it with "stability, tolerance and democracy." But the values of his handpicked running mate, Sarah Palin, more resemble those of Muslim fundamentalists than they do those of the Founding Fathers. On censorship, the teaching of creationism in schools, reproductive rights, attributing government policy to God's will and climate change, Palin agrees with Hamas and Saudi Arabia rather than supporting tolerance and democratic precepts. What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick."

Salon Article by Juan Cole.

Bad form? I don't see how.

[Edit: I thought the "bad form" was directed at the caller, not the moron who wants to kidnap women at gunpoint. That's why I commented the way I did. Just to be clear, then, it IS bad form to interfere with someone's reproductive rights by perpetrating violence on them.]

Presumably, the burglars felt they had to steal to pay for food, shelter, or drugs. Maybe they were mentally ill. Maybe it is the duty of the state to take care of the mentally ill, educate all, and produce conditions in which its people don't think they need to prey on each other to survive. But after a million years of guaranteeing survival and reproductive rights to everyone, what will become of humanity through evolution? Multiplication of severe genetic disorders? Balkanization into different species upon socioeconomic boundaries? If the intervenor had a long-range nonlethal weapon capable of reliably and immediately disabling the burglars until cops arrive, that would have been a better choice ("set phasers on stun!"). Such weapons do not yet exist. Tasers are torturous, short-range, and short-duration. Tranq darts are too slow, unless you shoot them out the window and hide until the darts take effect. He could have shot low to prevent them from walking away without killing them. I'm ambivalent about whether he should have done nothing. In a perfect world the situation would never arise that someone would feel they had to become a burglar to survive. I doubt that anything more than a small percentage of burglaries are thought of by the perpetrators as other than a matter of survival. Living meagerly is preferable to risking your life for luxury; in the mind of some homeless people burglary may be the alternative to certain death.