Tuesday, July 31, 2007
The Malicious Morons at MoveOn.Org, OR Boycotting What You Don't Like, OR Feigning Outrage for Political Gain, OR The War Against Fox News
Now MoveOn.Org wants to limit the free exchange of ideas. Now MoveOn.Org wants to silence any non-conformists to its irrational, unsubstantiated leftist agenda. Now MoveOn.Org wants to ensure a complete liberal bias and leftist monopoly of all media outlets. Now MoveOn.Org wants to start a boycott of any company that advertises on FoxNews.
For the most part, I have absolutely no problem with people voting with their dollars. I myself have ended relationships with companies whose actions I find morally reprehensible, most recently Bank of America for their decision to encourage a disregard for the laws of this country by providing illegal aliens with banking services. And I had zero problem telling Bank of America that I was outraged and I no longer wanted to do business with them.
But how effective are organized boycotts, really? Has this nation reached a critical mass when it comes to boycotts and "public outrage"? Every day there is another news story of some group expressing their blown-out-of-proportion "outrage" over minor issues, tiny jokes, slips of the tongue, or the free expression of ideas not completely in sync with their own. Outrage is a constant, perpetual. Everyone's pissed about something, and anything you do is going to piss somebody off.
Part of the growing problem of this unending blame assignment stems from a deeper logical fallacy that has infected the minds of not only of Americans, but of people across the world - it is an irrational belief that groups of people, organizations, are indirectly or directly liable or responsible for the actions and deeds of individuals. Secondly, there is a growing intolerance toward differences of opinion. Thirdly, there is an increasing disregard for logic and rationality, and a shrinking willingness to look at issues and facts with any sort of discerning, unbiased eye - which in turns translates to people opining solely emotionally, with no real concrete thought behind it. This of course leads to gross misrepresentations of opposing hypotheses and conclusions. For examples, the promoters of the theory that global warming is caused primarily by the activities of mankind have fallen into a blind, religious fervor - accepting no discussion or debate, and seeing anything less than a full "commitment," as that insane fascist RFK Jr worded it in a discussion with Glenn Beck, to their hypothesis as blasphemy. The first rule of blind faith - eliminate the doubt in others, or at least the ability of others to express doubt, for fear that their skepticism will awaken hesitancy in oneself.
When it comes to large companies, or large media outlets, some confuse individual trees with the forest. The opinions of one may not reflect the views of the whole. In fact, the whole may even just have some "free expression" policy within itself, allowing for internal inconsistency and freedom. A media outlet may only being interested in providing forums for a variety of ideas and opinions, to appeal to a variety of consumers at different points. Also, news providers often segment out, or compartmentalize, information based on interest, topic, or execution. For example, newspapers have local sections, national sections, sports sections, lifestyle sections, arts sections, and so on. And straightforward news reporting is most often splintered off from editorializing. The scumbags at the LA Times editorialize about freeing the traitor John Walker Lindh. Cable news networks, like Fox News, can in turn provide "opinion sections" in the form of pundit programs, like those of Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity. A perfectly acceptable and long-standing tradition. But because these editorialists express opinions during their editorial segments, or guests or anchors even QUESTION the opinions held by MoveOn, the morons at MoveOn.Org irrationally conclude that the Fox News Network completely fails to provide "fair and balanced" news programming.
What bothers me is not the right of MoveOn.Org and like-minded individuals to organize a boycott and participate in one, it is the twisted reasoning for their proposed boycott. The great offense Fox News committed? They fail to completely agree with MoveOn. They provide forums for dissenting or alternate opinions. I don't expect the members of MoveOn to want to watch O'Reilly any more than I should be expected to subscribe to that shit-rag the LA Times. I have no problem with MoveOn expressing disagreement with any of O'Reilly's opinions. What I find disturbing in the idea that, in the eyes of MoveOn, Fox News is committing a sort of mindcrime by even freely existing or exploring an issue or allowing free speech on their programs. To make the distinction clear, imagine a group of Christians boycotting a television show because they find a character to be an offensive representation of a Christian. Now imagine a group of Christians boycotting every advertiser to an entire network because that network is not completely devoted to Christianity and is not evangelically promoting the Christian faith every second of the day.
Now imagine what leftist groups like MoveOn would say about that Christian group if the latter were true. Or even the former.
MoveOn has even convinced Democratic Presidential candidates not to appear during Fox News sponsored debates. Which of course just makes these Democrats look petty and cowardly.
Some boycotts are effective because many businesses cowardly cave to the demands of extremists, for fear of losing customers and thus profits. But any intelligent business owner will tell you that you cannot appeal to everyone. The trouble is, businesses can make rash decisions, especially when not hearing the other side of an argument - they only listener to the boycotters, mistakenly thinking they're the only ones concerned about an issue. It becomes a win-lose situation in their minds - we can lose some customers by continuing to do what we are doing, or we can keep them all by not offending these few.
So how best to counter the waves of perpetual outrage? How best to make businesses realize they should not, or at least need not, kowtow to radicals? With a counter-boycott - either by supporting businesses that are being boycotted (and letting them know you are), or by in turn boycotting businesses that succumb to the extortion of extremists. When businesses are put in a lose-lose situation, they'll take the losing route they think will make them the most money. If put in a situation of losing customers either way, they will make choices based on their own agendas, or their own best interests. The trouble now is that businesses often fail to realize the amount of ill-will that can be generated by succumbing to boycotts. If the effects are equalized, then organized boycotting will eventually fall to the wayside. Businesses will then continue to advertise in places where they will reach more customers without having to worry about whether or not their advertising dollars will indirectly connected to some great offense in some radical's mind.
Monday, July 30, 2007
A) Submerging a crucifix in a jar of urine.Anyone cynical and savvy enough to discern the double-standards, and the growing attacks on freedom and liberty, that have been sweeping the country as of late will accurately guess C.
B) Burning the American flag.
C) Putting a Koran in a toilet.
What amazes me most about this whole thing is the lack of consistency. A lot of people who in the past have defended the rights of people to do A and B, and have even argued for publicly funding A and B, now turn around and completely ignore their own arguments for free expression, attacking a person's individual right to do C for fear it is 'hurtful' or 'hateful' to Muslims. Granted, C may be so, but to the same degree, A and B are equally hurtful and hateful to Christians and many Americans, respectfully. However, the concept that everyone should be treated the same is completely ignored by the leftist thought police, and the feelings of one group count, the feelings of others do not. In the unequal-protection-under-the-law, politically correct view, the right to free speech and expression of some people should be violated to keep another group of people from feeling slighted. But only if it is the correct group of people!!! The 'right' of Muslims to not be offended outweighs the personal liberties of everyone else - but in turn the Muslim/liberal/atheist right to free expression outweighs the 'right' of Christians and/or American patriots not to be offended. Muslims and leftists are thusly treated as a super-class, with rights far and above everyone else in this nation. And, even worse, if you're a tax-payer, you get to fund their right to offend you with public art grants and in the public education system (especially at the university level). But if you offend them, you face arrest.
In this bizarro situation, the people calling for special consideration of only Muslims' feelings are not the racists in their own eyes, it's everyone else who is, for daring to suggest that all groups be treated equally, and holding everyone to the same standard. Good Allah, if some folks aren't 'more than equal', then you're a bigot!
The world is going mad. Round is square, up is down, right is wrong, black is white, Islam is peaceful. What next?
Support Stanislav Shmulevich!
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
QUESTION: Hi. I'm Cecilla Smith.
QUESTION: And I'm Asanti Wilkins.
QUESTION: And we're from Pennsylvania, and my question is to all the candidates, and it's regarding the national minimum wage. Congress seems to never have a problem when it comes time to give themselves a raise. But when it came time to increase the minimum wage, they had a problem.
My question to the candidates: If you're elected to serve, would you be willing to do this service for the next four years and be paid the national minimum wage?
What was most interesting was Obama's response:
OBAMA: Well, we can afford to work for the minimum wage because most folks on this stage have a lot of money. It's the folks on that screen who deserve -- you're doing all right, Chris, compared to, I promise you, the folks who are on that screen.
Now, why exactly did our holier-than-thou socialist messiah Obama assume that the people on screen were not doing well, or not as well as Chris Dodd? Because they were black? I mean, maybe, just maybe, they asked the question because they make minimum wage. But at the same time, I've heard a number of people, from the wealthy to the not-so-well-off, discussing this issue. So it isn't a given. It could have just been something that concerned them, as it concerns the demonic Ted Kennedy.
It's this gross assumption of inferiority, especially an assumption based on group membership, which clouds a great deal of thinking on the left. The anti-individualism which colors liberalism often blinds many from seeing people as singular and unique. All solutions and problems, from the well-intentioned to the mean-spirited, are seen through the filter of tribalism - only the collective can be assigned attributes, and only the collective is capable of valid and viable action. Individual concerns are secondary.
Racism is a negative aspect of tribalism. It can only be overcome by ending, or at least downplaying, tribalist thought; it cannot be overcome by reversing, re-balancing or transforming the tribalism itself into another form like political correctness. All political correctness or affirmative action programs do is continue the practice of judging persons by their perceived group affiliations. And what is positive or negative in one context could be viewed as ugly or wonderful in another. A celebration of culture via food could be twisted into an ugly stereotype, for example. I would not go out on a limb and say people should not be proud of their personal cultural or sub-cultural heritages, but the problem with tribalism is that it puts heritage far above individual personality, achievement, and faults. Once individualism is placed in the fore-front, and heritage is placed on the back-burner, then heritage becomes unimportant in assessment of other individuals, a neutral, and can be appreciated for what it is, and not be used as a negative.
Sadly, Democrats like Obama get far too much mileage out of the promotion of tribalist thinking, and will use it for political leverage rather than trying to make the world a better place. And, as we see here, such fuzzy thought can even make a racist out of a race-baiter.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
1. Joe Biden is a fucking asshole, and proved to be the biggest dickhead of the evening. If you didn't know this already, gentle readers, check out Biden's overly insulting response to a YouTube presented question about gun control (in which the questioner referred to his gun as his "baby"):
I'll tell you what, if that is his baby, he needs help... I don't know that he is mentally qualified to own that gun. I'm being serious.I'm being serious here myself - Biden is an asshole with a capital "hole." Not only does he spit in the face of the Constitution by completely disregarding the Second Amendment, and suggesting one would have to be mentally unstable to own a gun, but he goes out on a limb to insult a reasonable questioner ("tell me your position on gun control"). Now, a lot of men refer to their toys as "babies," so there was absolutely no reason to take a disgusting, holier-than-thou attitude and tear apart a guy who believes in freedom and liberty on national television. Even worse, Biden added:
... I hope he doesn't come looking for me.Great. The questioner did not make a single threat toward anyone. Not only does Biden see our Constitutionally protected right of gun ownership and thus self-defense as insane, he implies that just because someone OWNS a gun, then they're automatically assumed to be guilty of potential assassination and dangerous enough to actually go after a politician. What a typical mixed-up liberal lame-brain. In the justice system, criminals have been given all the loopholes possible by the left, making convicting real threats to our lives and property nearly impossible, but private, up-standing, law-abiding citizens are assumed guilty by liberals, simply because these gun-owners believe in the right to keep arms, bear weapons, and defend oneself from the evil slime in the world that the government does such a bang-up job of keeping out of prison and on the streets. Thanks, Senator, for trusting us to make our own decisions and not preventing us from obtaining the tools we need to keep ourselves safe. And thanks so much, Biden, for those wonderful characterizations of gun-owners as nut-cases and assassins. I don't take that personally at all. Way to win over the moderates, the libertarian minded, and those that actually believe we citizens can and should take responsibility and make decisions for our own lives without unnecessary, cumbersome government interference. You're an asshole. Biden, you should apologize to gun owners and most especially to the guy that asked that question.
2. Kucinich is a complete goofball. I'm surprised anyone but hippy pacifist vegan nimrods give him any respect whatsoever. Oh right, they're the only ones that take him seriously in the first place.
3. Bill Richardson won both the race-baiter and the conspiracy-whacko awards of the evening with a single sentence:
We need to have an effort to get the Republican Party to stop suppressing minority voters.Riiiiight. Richardson resorts to ugly, baseless accusations and urban myths here to further slander the Republican Party for his own personal gain and for the Democratic Party's. What we really need to have an effort to do is to get Bill Richardson to stop molesting little children. Oh, what Bill? You don't like it when someone lies about you to make you look bad? Too bad, you started it. Stop suggesting that Republicans are racist. I'm sick to death of the gross mischaracterization.
The question asked was actually an interesting one, regarding "standardizing" our nation's elections. Although, I doubt that low voter turnout is much of a result of distrust in the voting process as the questioner implied. Still, a nationally standardized, more trustworthy system would be a welcome change. For one, a national ID card along with voter ID verification at the polls would improve the validity of the process and prevent a lot of fraud. There is very little now, really, to stop illegal aliens, ineligible criminals and duplicate voters from casting votes.
4. Is that John Edwards real hair or some sort of hair textured helmet?
Monday, July 23, 2007
At one point,
Mrs. Clinton said she has been trying "to understand where all of the venom and the incredible anxiety came from" in the immigration debate.Well, Hillary, if you cannot understand (i.e., comprehend, not necessarily agree with) the reasons for the anger and frustration many Americans feel over this issue and your handling of it, then you're more than likely too motherfucking stupid (and by 'stupid' I mean 'extremely fucking idiotic') to be President of the United States. Or, you're just being disingenuous here, and you're just too dishonest to be trusted. Knowing who your husband is, either option is a very real possibility.
Rather than really explore or even bother debating the positions held by those who disagree with you, you'd rather feign incredulity, and thus dismiss their opinions rather than address the substance and logic behind them. Instead of facing an honest discussion or owning up to the massive failure of the Federal Government on illegal immigration and border security, you just pretend (or honestly are too moronic to believe otherwise) that any disagreement or disgust with your stance on illegal immigration is nothing but emotional, irrational meanness.
Passion is not venom. You must learn to distinguish between the two. That people express opinions with emotion is not necessarily some form of evil. Even if, HUGH GASP, those opinions are the opposite of your own. Look at your own passion, if you truly have any. Is righteous fury venom? No, it is not. To be honest, many who disagreed with you find your constant accusations and assertions that they are 'racist' particularly atrocious and venomous. Do not act admirable and gracious while at the same time underhandedly tossing out defamations.
Not that Hillary would be brave enough to read this, or really honestly curious enough to discover what a reasonable view opposing her own might be, but let me break it down a bit for her to "understand", since she at least claimed to have a desire to learn the source of the passionate reaction to the amnesty movement and legislation she supported.
- Many Americans are fed up to the core of their beings with the unwillingness of the federal government, that both of the legislative and executive branches, to protect this nation, its citizens and communities, from waves of unwelcome and undocumented foreigners invading our soil, unchecked. Concern over a wide open gate through which anyone can enter, harmful or not, is not venomous or prejudiced. It is merely rational, motivated self-defense.
- A great number of American citizens are sick to death of the tendency of Democrats and some Republicans (like Bush) to favor and reward criminality and simultaneously completely ignore and work against justice, ethical behavior, security, and law enforcement. Border patrol agents are jailed for doing their job, and local police have their hands tied by destructive politically correct policies preventing them from even determining who is or is not a legal citizen. The Senate wanted to grant amnesty (citizenship) to people that broke the law coming here, giving them a jump in line in front of loads of people that have been patiently attempting to gain American citizenship via legal means. Of course actions like this make a number of law-abiding people who respect justice and fairness angry. The villains are rewarded, and the heroes are attacked or castrated.
- People were especially upset that the views of American citizens were being ignored so that members of both political parties could basically buy votes by giving undeserving criminals citizenship, thus creating a new pool of grateful underprivileged voters. It smacked of pandering rather than action in the best interest of the nation.
- The American people were tired of being lied to by politicians who voted for one element of border enforcement, a fence, but then failed to see that it was built - or even worse actively worked against its construction and completion.
- The debate was not about Mexican-Americans, nor even legal immigrants. People grew quite annoyed, and rightly so, by the intentional and obvious attempt to blur the distinctions between hispanics, legal immigrants, and illegal aliens. The venom from the race-baiters bred increasingly passionate responses from those opposed to illegal immigration.
- Many people have seen their neighborhoods and towns overrun by illegal non-citizens who have no interest in this country or its culture beyond seeing it as a cash-cow and a source of free services - people unwilling even to learn the language. And now businesses and government services are forced by liberal ilk to provide special consideration and Spanish language texts to these people with no real commitment to this country. Politicians hide in their elite towers, failing to even take a look at areas destroyed by the onslaught of impoverished illegals.
"I am very disappointed, and I was really quite offended by the tone of the debate and some of what was said by outside parties who were trying to influence the debate."If you are so offended by the tone, why, Hillary, are you being such a hypocrite; why do you constantly name-call and try to portray the opposition is such an extremely negative, hurtful light? If Ms. Clinton should be disappointed in anyone, it's her own two-faced, transparent behavior here, bemoaning the supposedly "racist" views of the other side from her own delusional position of arrogance and unfounded superiority. In short, she decries what she views as one group of people seeing some other group as inferior, all the while acting as if that initial group suffers from some form of inferiority itself.
I can think of almost nothing more offensive than the load of crap Hillary is trying to sell to the American public (and to non-American migrants). If she wants to fix the tone of the debate, well then, she should start off by stopping her own intentional button-pushing and baseless attacks. Address facts, and agree or disagree as the case may be. But stop disparaging the other side.
Exposing her diseased mind to the general public, Hillary Clinton, whose policies alone show her putting the interests of law-breaking foreigner invaders over those of her own nation's populace, shows her disdain for democracy by referring to the outraged American citizenship, those to whom she SUPPOSEDLY should answer to, as "outside parties." In what sort of twisted universe are the voters of the United States who put you in power the "outside parties," and illegal aliens the ones whom the government should service and represent? How on Earth can we keep trusting an elected representative who displays this sort of antipathy to the free expression of views by American citizens to the governmental officials that should serve them? It is not Hillary's disagreement with those opposed to illegal immigration that is troubling, it is her opinion that she does not answer to the public, or that those portions of the public that do not follow her lead are somehow "outsiders."
To punctuate her insanity, she informed La Raza that even racists, like any other individual committing an act of evil, are not responsible for their actions. True blame rests only in the hands of the anti-Christ:
She blamed the tone on what she called a poor economy under President Bush.Insulting as her implications of racism are, it is even more insulting to hear her claim that we supposed haters are not even capable or responsible for our own ill-will toward Latinos, it is, like everything else, Bush's fault. For being completely inept, that guy sure has some crazy magic powers of persuasion and control.
Barack Obama one upped Hillary in the insulting shithead department:
The Illinois Democrat said the recent Senate immigration debate "was both ugly and racist in a way we haven't see since the struggle for civil rights."And yet again, another worthless piece of monkey dung politician claiming to be a uniter, claiming to be above partisanship, claiming to be a moderate voice, proves to be nothing more than a twisted, corrupt, unethical, lying, mean-spirited, abusive extremist and divider. The only thing ugly about the debate was the amount of illogical hatred displayed by characters like Barck Hussein.
Does anyone besides the race-baiting diversity pushers and the smarmy socialist elite truly want this assfuck as President of the United States? Can you imagine having this hateful, hurtful malefactor as leader of the free world?
Perhaps you think I'm being a tad harsh. But, to be truthful, I'm probably not being harsh enough. Should I sit idly back as dipshits like Clinton and Obama refer to me as "racist," ignoring my true opinions and painting me with negative scarecrows for their own personal gain, to the detriment of justice and the good of the country? No. Fuck them. They've insulted me, so I'm insulting them back. Clinton and Obama are, without a doubt, a couple of major fucking assholes.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Here's how your vile representatives in the Senate voted (60s yeas were needed):
Grouped By Vote Position
|McCain (R-AZ) |
|Mikulski (D-MD) |
|Not Voting - 3|
|Brownback (R-KS)||Johnson (D-SD)||Obama (D-IL)|
I'd like to send out a big FUCK YOU
to my own totalitarian Senators, Boxer and Feinstein, for their own utter failure to protect freedom and liberty and individual choice (except in cases of anal sex and fetus-cide). Next time you run a commercial on the public airwaves, I fully expect you to give me half the time you pay for so that I can present my own opposing opinions on you and your actions in the government. They haven't banned the word "twat" from the radio yet, have they?
Thursday, July 05, 2007
I cannot give enough kudos to the heroic cab driver who took it upon himself to boot a barbaric Islamofascist homicide bomber who had set himself on fire right in the nuts. Especially since it has led to one of the greatest headlines I have ever read. Nothing stops a burning jihadist dipstick like a testicle punt. They were right when they said muslim extremism would be beaten by footballers.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereofThe separation of church and state has always been a complex issue. Federal, state and local governments are often forced into a delicate balancing act between official endorsement or support of a particular religion (or religiousness) and laws or policies which may restrict an individual's participation in their personal religious beliefs and practices. In general, the principle that the state should act, overall, as apathetic toward religion is a sound one, one based in the ideals of liberty and freedom. The state should not dictate or require specific religious beliefs or practices, nor should they restrict religion except where practices or beliefs run counter to community standards of morality and behavior (e.g., high crimes like murder or drug use, or for safety reasons). And in those cases where the government does seemingly interfere with religious practice or belief, it is not the "religion" itself that should be illegal, but actions that would be illegal for all. In other words, laws should be applied equally, regardless of religious belief, and no one should be targeted specifically because of their faith, nor be given special privileges to break the laws which everyone else must follow because of their affiliation.
--US Constitution, First Amendment (of the Bill of Rights)
The state cannot discriminate on the basis of religion, either positively or negatively. But necessary laws and regulations trump religion. Human sacrifice is still murder, and still a punishable offense, even if one believes Pele demands virgins be tossed into a volcano against their will.
While a few extremists believe that the United States should be a "Christian nation," some fail to see how important this first amendment protection really is. Some small group may well have no problem with the government endorsing Christianity, but these people should really consider just how different the government's version of Christianity might be from their own. They need to look at how varied, and often radical, other sects of Christianity might be compared to their own vision - Christian groups cover the spectrum, from the far "right" to the far "left." Some Christians can go on and on about their personal definition of a "true Christian," and who or what fits it, but there is no guarantee that the state would see it the same way. One need look no further than government established versions of history and morality, such as those taught in the public school systems, to see just how far away from ones own conceptions of these "subjects" those of our multifaceted government might just be. For example, one might be Christian and think that homosexuality is a sin, but does one really think a state established church would discriminate against gay ministers, given today's political climate?
The first amendment protects everyone. It's important to remember that.
Here in San Diego, in the public school system, however, it seems as if the state does not treat everyone equally. Here there is a double-standard. Here the first amendment is ignored. According to this article:
A substitute teacher claimed that Carver Elementary School in San Diego was indoctrinating students into Islam, and that a teacher's aide led Muslim children in prayer.Carver is currently "providing a 15-minute break in the classroom each afternoon to accommodate Muslim students who wish to pray." Is this a case of special privilege, or merely a case of a government institution doing its best not to restrict religious practice, akin to giving a specific day off for a Jewish holiday? Is that even fair, when atheists cannot get any special days or periods of time off? As the article reminds us:
Islam requires its adherents to pray at prescribed times, one of which falls during the school day.At first glance, giving people time-off from school for religious reasons seems perfectly reasonable. And, according to school officials, it might even be required, at least by the current interpretations of the law:
Supporters of Carver say such an accommodation is legal, if not mandatory, under the law. They note the district and others have been sued for not accommodating religious needs on the same level as non-religious needs, such as a medical appointment.One cannot completely fault a school district for acting in its best financial interests, and in turn the financial interests of the tax-payer, especially given the lack of leadership, consistency and clarity on the church and state issue from the local, state and federal government. However, making a decision based on the fact that someone has "been sued for" something in this highly litigious society is not an excuse for a government entity, for this is not the same as determining from these the judgments what is or is not actually legal, allowed or mandatory. Or right. Especially if this accommodation is somehow far and above accommodations given to students of other religions, or no religions at all. Basing policy on suits (and WHO is suing) rather than final court decisions is action out of fear. It is not a thoughtful assessment of legal responsibility. Importantly:
The U.S. Department of Education's guidelines say students can pray at public schools during school hours by themselves or with fellow students. However, teachers and other public school officials may not lead their classes in prayer, devotional readings from the Bible or other religious activities.What is most disturbing here in San Diego is the accusation that a school aide was "indoctrinating" and leading children in a "Muslim prayer." And that "those who don't pray [could] read or write during that non-instructional time." While this may seem akin to a "moment of silence," for which some on the religious right have fought, it is not certain at all that the muslim prayer break is anything close to that. A moment of silence would allow each student to practice or not practice, to pray or not pray, to reflect or nod off, in complete quiet, on equal footing, with no particular practice or belief favored. No school official endorses or requires or supports any particular course of action during the silence. It is not clear in the Carver situation whether or not this prayer break occurred in the presence of non-muslim students. If it did, especially if it were vocally led by either an official or a student, to a captive audience, then this could be seen as a clear violation of the establishment clause. And, as only muslims are given this privilege, of equal protection too. Would a Christian group be given class-time and resources for prayer, say for a daily Catholic rosary? I think not. And here we have a huge double standard. Think of the valedictorians who could not read their individually written and personal speeches mentioning "God," for fear that allowing individual editorializing during the graduation ceremony, a school activity for all, constitutes endorsement not just by the private citizen, but by the school, and that such mention would be seen as a tiny bit of establishment. Schools have gone so far as to ban free speech for students during ceremonies, rather than say broadcasting a disclaimer that a student's views do not reflect those of the education system or are not necessarily endorsed by the school. Yet here in San Diego Islam is given special consideration that Christianity does not. Christianity is banned during expressions of individual opinion, yet Islam is celebrated in the classroom.
Another question raised here is to what extent is a state facility responsible for providing resources, such as classroom space, for the free exercise of religion. Some might contend that even providing facilities for religious practice is a violation of the rights of the non-spiritual tax-payer, and a clear case of the state establishing a preference toward spirituality. Or is the state forced to do this if it forces students to attend a public institution in the first place?
The federal Equal Access Act requires that extracurricular school clubs, religious and non-religious, be treated equally.If school facilities are used for various non-instructional, school club reasons, then it does seem acceptable that officials not discriminate against (or for) these clubs on the basis of religion. But in this case, we are talking about a classroom, during class-time, cutting into other students' instructional time. The muslim prayers happened not during the non-instructional free time (recess, lunch, free period) which are part of school hours, but in class. So, here, the facilities and resources are being grossly misused. These facilities and the time of the state-employed teachers are to be used for educational purposes during instructional time. During breaks, they should be open to all, or at least be made available for all to reserve, for religious or non-religious. Even setting aside a free space for muslims during a specific time shows a preference and violates the rights of all other non-muslim students.
Oddly, the left has fought for years to keep religion, or at least Christianity, out of the public schools, to the point of not allowing students to speak freely during class or school time about their religious convictions, yet now the left seems to be all for bending over backwards and providing special treatment and facilities to non-Christian religions. A double-standard indeed. And, by any stretch of the imagination, an unfair, unequal treatment.
In the end, this shows one of the many challenges and problems of a public, rather than private, education system that all, even those without children utilizing these services, are expected to pay into. A public education system is part of the state, and must be unbiased in its treatment of students.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Barack Obama, for example, said there was "an ugly overtone" in the debate, which he said was absent from the debate over the same bill last year, and accused opponents of using "the politics of fear."Barack is nothing but a pathetic race-baiter and hyperbolist. It was not fear, nor hate, that motivated the public against this awful piece of legislation; it was outrage and frustration. What could be more ugly than implying that people are racist, or "ugly," for attempting to defend this nation and the rule of law? Unlike Obama, who seems only able to view people as homogeneous groups rather than as individuals, opponents of this bill were quite able to distinguish between Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, as well as between American-born Hispanics, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. Over and over, idiots like Obama play the race card, for personal gain, and then wonder why people are so fed up with their policies and accusations. Who is playing on the "politics of fear," if not you, Obama, trying to motivate people to vote for you by painting a distorted picture of the "other guy" as hate-mongering bigots?
Joe Biden, who doesn't have a snowball's chance in Death Valley of gaining his party's nomination, was even worse - or at least more desperate:
Joe Biden told conference attendees the debate over immigration "has become a race to the bottom - who can be the most anti-Hispanic."Moron. Being anti-illegal alien is not in any way, shape or form the same as being "anti-Hispanic." The former is a stance toward criminal behavior and foreign invasion, while the latter is racist.