“Lately I feel like somebody made a big mess and I’ve got my mop and I’m mopping the floor and the folks who made the mess are there (saying) ‘You’re not mopping fast enough. You’re not mopping the right way. It’s a socialist mop.’”—
A 63-year-old Southern California man who was traveling with explosives in his vehicle with the intention of blowing up one of the nation’s largest mosques where mourners had gathered for a funeral was arrested in the Detroit suburb of Dearborn, Michigan authorities said Sunday.
Dearborn police said Roger Stockham was arraigned Wednesday on one count of making a false report or threat of terrorism and one count of possessing explosives with an unlawful intent. Stockham had a large but undisclosed quantity of class-C fireworks including M-80s, which are outlawed in Michigan, Chief Ronald Haddad said.
"I was comfortable with the fact that we had taken him off the street – he isn’t going anywhere," Haddad told The Associated Press Sunday afternoon. "I think the society he wanted to impact is safe."
Haddad said authorities believe Stockham was acting alone but still take him “very seriously.” He said Stockham has “a long history of anti-government activities,” though he declined to elaborate.
Well, then. Will this be covered extensively on Fox? Terrorism IS terrorism, right?
Instead of engaging with points of view that are challenging to yours (or just even working from a very different perspective), instead of looking within yourself to see how you’re perpetuating and practicing discrimination and harm, all you have to do is pick out a word and go “Ableist! Classist! XYZist!” and dismiss the other person altogether, self-satisfied that we’re done our Good Activist Deed Of The Day and so no one can call us out on our rubbish.
Prettying up the surface instead of dealing with the darker depths. Talking the talk but not walking the walk. Not willing to take what you dish out. Nitpicking on the small stuff because it saves us from having to tackle the hairier things.
I feel like we’re in some sort of weird semi-academic-language bubble on Tumblr, patting ourselves on the back for not using ableist words or whatever, without actually thinking of how it works elsewhere in the world. Honestly, outside of Tumblr, who else is going to look at words like “homophobia” and go “oh no! that’s ableist towards people with phobias!”? Especially when the people who have a right to raise that concern haven’t brought it up in offline circles until now? Will anyone else be able to understand why certain words are X-ist if you explain - or will they come back and say that just because they use supposedly X terms doesn’t mean they are that discriminatory in their actions? It’s really easy (and common) for people to be really savvy in the language and yet have rotten attitudes and actions.
And speaking of savviness - I feel that language policing puts even more pressure on people whose language (mainly English) skills are already under scrutiny for not being perfect - people for whom English isn’t a first language, who learnt it in a non-English-centric country, who grew up trying to translate difficult nuances between languages and found ways that were “good enough” early on. There’s already enough prejudice being doled out for not speaking “proper English” (as if there’s such a thing) and for not typing full sentences or using your/you’re correctly as it is.
Do we really want to privilege conversations like these towards people who have really high English language skills, whatever their perspective? Do we really want to alienate people with important and useful perspectives because they’ve learnt to use the word “crazy” for things that don’t make sense, or can’t get people’s pronouns right because their native language only has one pronoun for any gender, or has found the term “homophobia” useful while still dealing with a debilitating phobia of spiders but doesn’t see one degrading the other?
As it is we can’t even seem to make up our minds between being descriptive and being prescriptive. “They” as a singular pronoun is OK, but you can’t use “-phobia” anymore? You shouldn’t look down at someone’s typing skills, but there’s a huge difference between “trans man” and “transman”?
I saw this happen with BFP - she writes something important about having to deal with paperwork and insurance and finding it difficult due to her various health conditions, and the first responses are “This term is ableist” - when it turns out that they actually are relevant to her position. How many of us are going to know the writer’s original life story enough to be able to make that call between “they’re ableist!” and “they lived this!”? Do we have the right to make that call? How much are we letting language policing distract us from getting to the core of the issues raised?
What’s important here - what they’re saying or how they’re saying it?
So, there’s plenty of anti-gay sentiment this year in the Wyoming Legislature, just like past years. Rep. Frank Peasley told people in Laramie to “get over the whole Matthew Shepard thing” in 2009. This year, he claimed the government intrusion of the anti-gay bills in the legislature would stop government intrusion into the lives of people of people who want to define what kind of relationship they’re in.
In 2009, Peasley won my assclown of the legislative cycle award. In Wyoming, even years are budget sessions, so I don’t give out the award.
I have my 2011 winner. This year, the award for the biggest assclown of the legislative session may have to go to Rep. Gerald Gay of Casper. He was the guy who shot socialism (never mind that’s a hammer and sickle) in his campaign commercials:
But that’s not why he deserves the award. THIS is why he deserves the award:
That’s right. During discussion over an anti-gay bill, he got all pissy about people saying “gay” versus “homosexual” during discussion on HB 74. It doesn’t matter that this bill is government intrusion (*hint* that’s what he claimed was the problem) that seeks to invalidate legal contracts between two consenting adults and is creating a second class of citizen in The Equality State. Gerald Gay has exposed his bigotry by insinuating that being gay is something to be ashamed of and disgraceful. It hurts his feelers for people to say gay on the house floor.
Either that, or he was trying to make an extremely juvenile gay joke. Yeah, it’s just a word, right? And we shouldn’t get offended by gay jokes, right? Because it’s just a word? And my last name’s “Gay”? And gay people are gross? Get it, guys? Guys?
See, there’s reasons that people sponsor bigoted legislation, as horrid as they may be - no justification of course, but they often have a reason. Gay even sponsored one of the anti-gay bills. But there’s no reason for Rep. Gerald Gay to get bitchy about people using the word “gay” on the house floor unless he is actually intolerant of gay people. Gay’s other main interest this legislative session is trying to get Sharia law banned in Wyoming.
Of all the things to get pissed off about… Rep. Gerald Gay of Casper is just a flat-out assclown. And that’s an accomplishment in a legislative session filled with assclownery. So, in conclusion:
“If I was gay, there would be no closet, you would never see the closet I came out of. Why? I would have burned it for kindling by the time I was 12. Because I know with all certainty in my mind, there is nothing wrong with being gay, and you know it.”—
There’s something deeply unsettling about living in a country where millions of people froth at the mouth at the idea of giving health care to the tens of millions of Americans who don’t have it, or who take pleasure at the thought of privatizing and slashing bedrock social programs like Social Security or Medicare. It might not be so hard to stomach if other Western countries also had a large, vocal chunk of the population that thought like this, but the U.S. is seemingly the only place where right-wing elites can openly share their distaste for the working poor. Where do they find their philosophical justification for this kind of attitude? It turns out, you can trace much of this thinking back to Ayn Rand, a popular cult-philosopher who exerts a huge influence over much of the right-wing and libertarian crowd, but whose influence is only starting to spread out of the U.S.
Back in the late 1920s, as Ayn Rand was working out her philosophy, she became enthralled by a real-life American serial killer, William Edward Hickman, whose gruesome, sadistic dismemberment of 12-year-old girl named Marion Parker in 1927 shocked the nation. Rand filled her early notebooks with worshipful praise of Hickman and was so smitten with Hickman that she modeled her first literary creation - Danny Renahan, the protagonist of her unfinished first novel, The Little Street - on him.
What did Rand admire so much about Hickman? His sociopathic qualities: “Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should,” she wrote, gushing that Hickman had “no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel ‘other people.’”
Another reason to NOT take Ayn Rand seriously… She apparently “developed the superhero of her novel, Atlas Shrugged, John Galt” off of Hickman and her idea of the Superman. Nice.
Police in Arlington, MA this week seized a large amount of weapons and ammunition from local businessman Travis Corcoran after he wrote a blog post threatening U.S. lawmakers in the wake of the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ). In a post on his blog (which has since been removed) titled “1 down and 534 to go” - 1 referring to Giffords and 534 referring to the rest of the House of Representatives and the Senate - Corcoran applauded the shooting of Giffords and justified the assassination of lawmakers because he argued the federal government has grown far beyond its constitutional limits. “It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot indiscriminately.”Target only politicians and their staff and leave regular citizens alone,” he wrote in the post.
In a Twitter exchange with reporter Laura Leslie, Corcoran lays out a conventional anti-government philosophy, and explains in depth why he views assassination as legitimate:
"I assert that the US federal gov has grown unconstitutionally large, and the legislature exceeds the powers delegated to it by the people,” Corcoran wrote. “As per the Declaration of Indep, when a gov becomes destructive those ends, it may be abolished,” he continued, “and the most moral approach is that which spares the maximum number of lives. Thus, assasination is a legitimate tool.”
He goes on to further justify assassination as “morally legitimate,” citing “Catholic Just War doctrine” among other theories, and explains, It’s illegal, yes, but it’s not un-American. America was founded on the idea of shooting gov officials. Lexington Concord!.In another tweet, he writes, “I disagree with murder. …but shooting politicians who pass illegitimate, unconstitutional laws is not murder.” And in case there’s any doubt about his sincery, he writes, “Nope, it’s not a joke. I’m 100% serious.”
I find it extremely coincidental. I wanted my url to be cognitive dissonance. It was already taken and I found myself thinking "What fucking dick took my name?!". Today, as I'm browsing through The Liberal Life tumblr, I see "cognitivedissonance" on some of the posts. Great minds think alike I suppose.
Well, sorry to be that dick, I guess. I’m actually a psych student and my main interests lie in social psychology, which studies Cognitive Dissonance extensively.
I hope I’m less of a dick than I was imagined to be previously ;) Great minds DO think alike!
State Representative LaVar Christensen (R, HD48) has reintroduced a bill he tried to run in 2006 which prohibits same sex couples from making contractual arrangements such as wills and financial arrangements. Get calling!
LaVar Christensen, the man who introduced and passed Utah’s Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage, has reintroduced an old enemy of the LGBT community. The bill, known in 2006 as HB 304 but now as HB 182, slides in under the generic title “Voiding Transactions Against Public Policy.” The bill’s language is virtually word-for word from the narrowly-defeated measure from 2006 and if passed will strip even more rights away from the same sex couples who desperately depend on contractual arrangements as Utah denies them any of the inherent protections afforded to any other couple.
The Wyoming Senate voted today in favor of a proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit recognition of same-sex marriages from outside the state of Wyoming.
The vote was 20-10, the minimum two-thirds majority needed for constitutional amendments.
As it goes to the House, Senate Joint Resolution 5 also contains language to allow a future Legislature to recognize civil unions.
If the bill passes in the House, the amendment will be placed on the November 2012 general election ballot.
From Sen. Von Flatern on Twitter: “3rd vote in the WY Senate.constitutional amendment; not recognize same-sex marriages. Messing with the Constitution for the subject dujour” - BINGO. Thank you.
From Former U.S. Sen. Al Simpson on this bill: “I can’t imagine anything more inhuman, insensitive and unfair. Wyoming people believe in getting the government out of their lives. We cherish the precious right of privacy, and the precious right to be left alone. Why can’t we extend that to all our other fellow human beings?”
But NOOOOOO, we have to be “The Equality State, (lol, j/k! NO HOMO!)”
I can’t adequately use big girl words to describe how angry I am at the moment, so I’ll use gifs instead.
Financier and cricket mogul Sir Allen Stanford was unfit to stand trial on charges of running a $7-billion fraud and needs treatment for a drug addiction, a US judge ruled.
Stanford’s trial had been due to begin this week but was postponed indefinitely until he could be considered fit to prepare his defense.
The financier has pleaded not guilty to 21 counts of fraud, money laundering and obstruction. He faces up to 375 years in jail if convicted.
"The court finds Stanford is incompetent to stand trial at this time based on his apparent impaired ability to rationally assist his attorneys in preparing his defense," US District Judge David Hittner wrote in his ruling in Houston, Texas. …
Hittner denied a request by Stanford’s lawyers to release him on bond and place him in a private treatment facility for his addiction.
Instead, he order the inmate to be committed to the custody of the attorney general to “undergo medical treatment for his current impaired mental capacity” and get a psychiatric evaluation.
The judge also recommended that the flamboyant Texan be sent to a medical facility within the US Bureau of Prisons, namely citing the Federal Medical Center in Butner, North Carolina, where Wall Street swindler Bernard Madoff is currently serving a 150-year term for defrauding investors of $20 billion.
Further proof justice is different for the rich. Imagine a judge ruling this way in favor of a meth addict. About impossible to imagine, no?
A coalition of rabbis wants Fox News chief Roger Ailes and conservative host Glenn Beck to cut out all their talk about Nazis and the Holocaust, and it’s making its views known in an unusual place.
The rabbis have called on Fox News’s owner, Rupert Murdoch, to sanction his two famous employees via a full-page ad in Thursday’s editions of the Wall Street Journal - one of many other media properties controlled by Murdoch’s News Corp.
The ad is signed by the heads of the Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist movements as well as Orthodox rabbis.
"We share a belief that the Holocaust, of course, can and should be discussed appropriately in the media. But that is not what we have seen at Fox News," says the ad, signed by hundreds of rabbis and placed by the Jewish Funds for Justice, a nonprofit advocacy group. Earlier this month, the group organized a letter-writing campaign asking Murdoch to remove Beck from the air.
The rabbis were prompted by Beck’s three-part program in November about liberal billionaire philanthropist George Soros, whom Beck described as a “Jewish boy helping send the Jews to the death camps” during World War II. … Ailes, in a November interview with the Daily Beast Web site, called NPR executives “Nazis” for their decision to fire Juan Williams, also a Fox commentator. He later apologized to the Anti-Defamation League, but not to NPR, saying, “I was of course ad-libbing and should not have chosen that word, but I was angry at the time because of NPR’s willingness to censor Juan Williams for not being liberal enough.”
But Ailes, in the same interview, defended Beck’s frequent use of Nazi references to describe his political opponents by attributing outrage over such remarks to “left-wing rabbis who basically don’t think that anybody can ever use the word ‘Holocaust’ on the air.”
View the ad here. An rather ingenious idea, and one I fully support.
“Others are worried that Justice Scalia gives off the impression of being political by going to this event. I’ve got news for you: that ship sailed on Bush v. Gore. So if you thought this event was absurd enough, wait until you get a load of the next speaker on the Constitution: Sean Hannity.”—
Cenk Uygur, on the news that Tea Party caucus leader Michelle Bachman is planning seminars with “constitutional scholars” all year long.
This guy ^^ is a parody of this nutty motherfucker. He’s the affirmative action bake sale dude. You should follow the parody. Don’t worry about the actual Alex. The real thing makes your head explode. If you’re into the head going all explode-y thing, then go for it.
On that note, Cenk Uygur, have I told you lately that I love you?