In the wake of Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin's (R) comments that women who are victims of "legitimate" rape don't get pregnant, it's been gratifying to see a large number of GOPers looking to cut Akin loose (e.g., Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)). Sure a goodly portion of it is the belief that Akin's about to cost them a likely Senate pick-up in Missouri, but the bare recognition of the fact that sometimes lunatic craziness has electoral consequences is a big step for the GOP compared to 2010.
But don't shed too many tears for Akin. It's not like he's wholly without friends. The Family Research Council released a statement saying that while they "don’t know anything about the science" (... but I repeat myself), Akin is assuredly the real victim here of the dreaded "gotcha politics". Meanwhile, across the pond George Galloway wants you to know that even if Julian Assange is guilty of everything he's alleged to have done, it's clearly nothing more than "bad sexual etiquette." To call it "rape", Galloway claims, would " bankrupt the term rape of all meaning."
I sense a new group of besties forming....
Showing posts with label FRC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FRC. Show all posts
Monday, August 20, 2012
Monday, April 23, 2012
I See Gay People
This year's Jerry Falwell Teletubby Memorial Award goes to ... Tony Perkins!
I suppose at least Perkins has the fact that Mike & Ike have two dudely-sounding names and are presented as being in a marriage -- all Falwell had to go on was Tinky Winky's triangle symbol and purple color. But it's tough to live up to a legend like Falwell -- kudos to Perkins for giving it his best shot.
These days, you can't get a sugar high without experiencing a cultural low. Hello, I'm Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. There's trouble in candy land. After more than 70 years together, Mike & Ike are calling it quits. The duo is staging a gay divorce as part of a new ad campaign to draw in younger customers. In this society, even candy has an agenda! From Facebook to Tumblr, the fruity pair says, "The rumors are true. We just couldn't agree on stuff anymore." Starting this summer, the company will spend $15 million on billboards and TV commercials that poke fun at the breakup. It's just another subtle example of society chipping away at the value of marriage. And I don't know what's more disturbing--that advertisers think divorce appeals to kids or that sexualizing candy will make people buy more.
I suppose at least Perkins has the fact that Mike & Ike have two dudely-sounding names and are presented as being in a marriage -- all Falwell had to go on was Tinky Winky's triangle symbol and purple color. But it's tough to live up to a legend like Falwell -- kudos to Perkins for giving it his best shot.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
What Clear Majority?
Once New York legalized gay marriage, I took a trip over to the Family Research Council, mostly out of pure schadenfreude. Tony Perkins was in typical form, fulminating about "political coercion" and improper "incentives" that swayed Republican votes. Yeah, I know -- what a crybaby.
But he also asserted that a "clear majority" of New York voters oppose legalizing gay marriage. Is there anything backing that up? A poll this past January gave gay marriage legalization 56% support in the Empire State. That jumped to 58% by the start of June. There's a clear majority, alright -- and it mimics the legislative majority that just secured marriage equality.
But he also asserted that a "clear majority" of New York voters oppose legalizing gay marriage. Is there anything backing that up? A poll this past January gave gay marriage legalization 56% support in the Empire State. That jumped to 58% by the start of June. There's a clear majority, alright -- and it mimics the legislative majority that just secured marriage equality.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
The Most Dangerous Game
The FRC is angry that Grover Norquist is joining the board of GOProud, a conservative gay rights group. One of the alleged sins of the group is that it will seek to leverage “concealed carry reciprocity” amendments whereby guns can be carried and recognized across state lines in order to create precedent that gay marriages legal in one state be likewise recognized in their fellows.
This, as David Kopel notes, is not an accurate summary of GOProud's position -- they support concealed carry laws so that gays and lesbians can protect themselves against rampant anti-gay violence. He suggests that the FRC should have instead made a slippery slope argument (that, regardless of intent, concealed carry reciprocity amendments would end up weakening state exclusion of foreign gay marriages), but adds the following:
Well, Kopel might think that, but look at it from the FRC's point of view. Gay marriage will destroy democracy and is worse than child rape. Even an infinitesimal chance that such horrors might come to pass is far, far more important than any other legislation Congress might consider.
This, as David Kopel notes, is not an accurate summary of GOProud's position -- they support concealed carry laws so that gays and lesbians can protect themselves against rampant anti-gay violence. He suggests that the FRC should have instead made a slippery slope argument (that, regardless of intent, concealed carry reciprocity amendments would end up weakening state exclusion of foreign gay marriages), but adds the following:
obviously the FRC is free to organize is policy preferences any way it wants. Personally, though, I think that federal legislation which directly protects the Second Amendment rights of all Americans is far more important than whatever tiny effect the bill might have on gay marriage.
Well, Kopel might think that, but look at it from the FRC's point of view. Gay marriage will destroy democracy and is worse than child rape. Even an infinitesimal chance that such horrors might come to pass is far, far more important than any other legislation Congress might consider.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Bedroom Antics
Thanks in part to pressure from New York AG Andrew Cuomo, American Eagle will stop discriminating against trans employees by dropping a requirement that employees wear "gender-specific clothing". Great news, you say? Well, you're not the FRC (thank God):
First, as Vanessa notes, this reveals absolutely nothing about any employee's "sexual lives". Knowing that an employee is trans (or a "cross-dresser") doesn't say anything about one's sexual practices (including whether one is gay, straight, or bi). It's the FRC that is sexualizing this, not anybody else.
But even taking the FRC's misguided analysis at face value, what it boils down to is that employers will be "burdened" by the knowledge that someone that they talk to might be ... having sex? Having teh gay sex? Whatever it is, I'm not sure how this abstract knowledge rises to the level of cognizable harm.
"ENDA, what might be more appropriately called 'The Cross-Dresser Protection Act,' takes the bedroom into the workplace and unfairly burdens employers to know about their employee's sexual lives. This major expansion of federal power over the workplace places an unnecessary burden on small businesses and local communities.
First, as Vanessa notes, this reveals absolutely nothing about any employee's "sexual lives". Knowing that an employee is trans (or a "cross-dresser") doesn't say anything about one's sexual practices (including whether one is gay, straight, or bi). It's the FRC that is sexualizing this, not anybody else.
But even taking the FRC's misguided analysis at face value, what it boils down to is that employers will be "burdened" by the knowledge that someone that they talk to might be ... having sex? Having teh gay sex? Whatever it is, I'm not sure how this abstract knowledge rises to the level of cognizable harm.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Our "First Gay President"
Oooh, the FRC's Tom McCluskey thinks he can snark:
In a massive shocker, McCluskey actually has no idea why President Clinton was referred to as "our first Black President". It wasn't due to his policies, per se. Rather, the phrase originated via Toni Morrison, who commented during the Lewinsky scandal the following:
Do you see a word about President Clinton's policies? No. It's about two things: one, his demeanor, and two, that Blacks identified with how he was hounded during his Presidency, how his enemies seemed intent on hyper-vigilance towards his sexuality and sexual misconduct, with a persistence that seemed mismatched both to the gravity of his offenses and to the treatment accorded to other public figures. The behavior seemed less about the pursuit of justice, and more about keeping a bright kid who had gotten a bit too uppity down, and that was an experience that Black people nationwide identified with. See also Paul Butler, Starr is to Clinton as Regular Prosecutors are to Blacks, 40 B.C. L. Rev. 705 (1999).
I don't think that Obama is known for having a gay demeanor. I also don't think that the method of opposition towards him is particularly reminiscent of the anti-gay bigotry propagated by, among others, the FRC. But alas, the FRC is little more than a partisan smear-factory with the veneer of religiosity. The odds that they've even had contact with substantial numbers of people outside the far-right's White Christian heterosexual base are rather low.
[I]f it was argued during his two terms in office that Bill Clinton was “our first black President” because of his supposed liberal policies that would benefit African-Americans (though I’m not quite sure what President Clinton did, that he wasn’t forced to do, that would benefit any minority except for Chinese monks with political donations to spend.) With that argument shouldn’t Barack Obama already be our “first gay President” due to his liberal policies pushing the homosexual agenda?
In a massive shocker, McCluskey actually has no idea why President Clinton was referred to as "our first Black President". It wasn't due to his policies, per se. Rather, the phrase originated via Toni Morrison, who commented during the Lewinsky scandal the following:
Years ago, in the middle of the Whitewater investigation, one heard the first murmurs: white skin notwithstanding, this is our first black President. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime. After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas. And when virtually all the African-American Clinton appointees began, one by one, to disappear, when the President's body, his privacy, his unpoliced sexuality became the focus of the persecution, when he was metaphorically seized and bodysearched, who could gainsay these black men who knew whereof they spoke? The message was clear "No matter how smart you are, how hard you work, how much coin you earn for us, we will put you in your place or put you out of the place you have somehow, albeit with our permission, achieved. You will be fired from your job, sent away in disgrace, and--who knows?--maybe sentenced and jailed to boot. In short, unless you do as we say (i.e., assimilate at once), your expletives belong to us."
Do you see a word about President Clinton's policies? No. It's about two things: one, his demeanor, and two, that Blacks identified with how he was hounded during his Presidency, how his enemies seemed intent on hyper-vigilance towards his sexuality and sexual misconduct, with a persistence that seemed mismatched both to the gravity of his offenses and to the treatment accorded to other public figures. The behavior seemed less about the pursuit of justice, and more about keeping a bright kid who had gotten a bit too uppity down, and that was an experience that Black people nationwide identified with. See also Paul Butler, Starr is to Clinton as Regular Prosecutors are to Blacks, 40 B.C. L. Rev. 705 (1999).
I don't think that Obama is known for having a gay demeanor. I also don't think that the method of opposition towards him is particularly reminiscent of the anti-gay bigotry propagated by, among others, the FRC. But alas, the FRC is little more than a partisan smear-factory with the veneer of religiosity. The odds that they've even had contact with substantial numbers of people outside the far-right's White Christian heterosexual base are rather low.
Friday, February 05, 2010
DADT Pushers
In the annals of those who support the continued exclusion of gays from the military, we've already talked about Senator John McCain's stunning reversal of his "listen to the leaders" position. Now that top military officials are onboard with repealing DADT, he no longer cares what they think! Now that's mavericky!*
But Senator McCain is hardly the only offender here. Let's look at some of the other top movers on the issue. There's Elaine Donnelly, whose professional responsibility is keeping gays out of the military, mostly by trafficking in obscene stereotyping. I enjoyed watching veteran Rep. Patrick Murphy eviscerate her in 2008 on the issue. Duncan Hunter is currently getting attention for his fear of a hermaphrodite wave, but I still recall fondly his belief that Israelis aren't "Judeo-Christian" enough to have problems with gay people.
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), beloved in the military community for savaging the patriotism of war hero Max Cleland, is worried that homosexuality is incompatible with the military's "high standards". Not an expression of hostility towards gay people at all! He also, in perhaps the most bizarre charge ever, fretted that gayness would lead to soldiers with (brace yourself) TATTOOS!
Given all that, it's almost refreshing to here some true straight talk from FRC bigwig Peter Sprigg, who flatly wants to overturn Lawrence and ban homosexuality outright. Tony Perkins, the chief of the FRC, is a military veteran himself. But he seriously indicated that he would not have chosen to serve if it meant serving next to gay and lesbian peers. Put him next to the gay and lesbian servicemembers who risk their lives for country that still sanctions official discrimination against them along several axis. I know who best represents our military traditions.
* "Mavericky" is a registered trademark of John McCain, meaning "principle-less support of whatever position is most politically expedient or ego-enhancing at the present moment." In this case, opposing DADT-repeal both helps him in a primary challenge from far-right ex-Rep. J.D. Hayworth, and sticks it to President Obama. So it's a bit of a gimme.
But Senator McCain is hardly the only offender here. Let's look at some of the other top movers on the issue. There's Elaine Donnelly, whose professional responsibility is keeping gays out of the military, mostly by trafficking in obscene stereotyping. I enjoyed watching veteran Rep. Patrick Murphy eviscerate her in 2008 on the issue. Duncan Hunter is currently getting attention for his fear of a hermaphrodite wave, but I still recall fondly his belief that Israelis aren't "Judeo-Christian" enough to have problems with gay people.
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), beloved in the military community for savaging the patriotism of war hero Max Cleland, is worried that homosexuality is incompatible with the military's "high standards". Not an expression of hostility towards gay people at all! He also, in perhaps the most bizarre charge ever, fretted that gayness would lead to soldiers with (brace yourself) TATTOOS!
Given all that, it's almost refreshing to here some true straight talk from FRC bigwig Peter Sprigg, who flatly wants to overturn Lawrence and ban homosexuality outright. Tony Perkins, the chief of the FRC, is a military veteran himself. But he seriously indicated that he would not have chosen to serve if it meant serving next to gay and lesbian peers. Put him next to the gay and lesbian servicemembers who risk their lives for country that still sanctions official discrimination against them along several axis. I know who best represents our military traditions.
* "Mavericky" is a registered trademark of John McCain, meaning "principle-less support of whatever position is most politically expedient or ego-enhancing at the present moment." In this case, opposing DADT-repeal both helps him in a primary challenge from far-right ex-Rep. J.D. Hayworth, and sticks it to President Obama. So it's a bit of a gimme.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
If It Means Some Infinitesimal Portion of the FRC's Tax Dollars Go To An Abortion, I'm All For It
John Cole gets a push poll from the FRC (the FRC push polls? But they're so moral and upright!) with such questions as "Do you support taxpayer funded abortions", "Do you support cuts of up to 50% in medicare in the Pelosi/Reid/Obama healthcare plan", and "Do you support backroom deals to pass the Pelosi/Reid/Obama healthcare plan?"
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
I'm Not Surprised, But....
No, I'm just not surprised. The FRC's Tony Perkins condemned the Vermont passage of a same-sex marriage bill (which overrode the governor's veto with a 2/3 majority in each house), as well as a DC vote recognizing gay marriages performed out of state, as something that would "destroy not only the institution of marriage, but democracy as well."
We all knew that the FRC's purported concern about "judicial activism" was a pure front that can be modified at will when it conflicts with its substantive political agenda of bigotry and intolerance. The same thing applies to its calls for maximum democratic ratification of policy decisions on gay marriage.
In other words, they're hacks. I'll tell you, even if I was ambivalent on the subject of gay marriage, I'd be cheering these developments just to watch the FRC lose.
We all knew that the FRC's purported concern about "judicial activism" was a pure front that can be modified at will when it conflicts with its substantive political agenda of bigotry and intolerance. The same thing applies to its calls for maximum democratic ratification of policy decisions on gay marriage.
In other words, they're hacks. I'll tell you, even if I was ambivalent on the subject of gay marriage, I'd be cheering these developments just to watch the FRC lose.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
They Just Ruin Everything
The California woman who recently gave birth to octuplets -- bringing her total number of children up to 14 -- has been attracting a lot of attention, and casting some light on the in-vitro fertilization industry. Is it safe to implant that many embryos in a woman? What are California's obligations to support the children? Are the mother's personal preferences being adequately respected by the media?
And then, there is the FRC, with its simple, tried and true, one size fits all message: it's the gays' (or in this case, lesbians') fault (the specific argument is such a breath-taking non-sequitur that I can't stand to repeat it).
Elsewhere, they expand their focus, attacking the woman for having the temerity to want children as a single mom, and attacking fertility clinics for killing babies (natch). But it's nice to know that, through it all, the FRC can find time to stick to the basics.
And then, there is the FRC, with its simple, tried and true, one size fits all message: it's the gays' (or in this case, lesbians') fault (the specific argument is such a breath-taking non-sequitur that I can't stand to repeat it).
Elsewhere, they expand their focus, attacking the woman for having the temerity to want children as a single mom, and attacking fertility clinics for killing babies (natch). But it's nice to know that, through it all, the FRC can find time to stick to the basics.
Friday, November 07, 2008
Listen to Perkins!
Chief of the Family Research Council Tony Perkins is out blaming the moderates for GOP losses in 2008. What's needed, he says, is a party more committed to pure Republican principles -- fiscally and socially.
This, to put it mildly, is tough to swallow in the face of the evidence. The fact is that there are several seats in deep red territory that are now Democratic directly resulting from Republican intolerance of moderate politicians. The Maryland first, gerrymandered specifically to elect a Republican, will be sending a Democrat to Congress after a right-wing challenger knocked off a moderate incumbent who would have assuredly cruised to re-election. The Michigan 7th saw the same thing -- a right-winger who defeated a moderate incumbent in 2006 got defeated in 2008. Bill Sali, the furthest right-wing candidate in a multi-member primary in 2006, lost his Idaho(!) seat this year to a Democrat. The blood red 2nd Ohio district is competitive every year because Jean Schmidt is their representative. And so on.
Put more broadly, there is very little proof that "pure" conservative principles enjoy broad popularity in the United States (gay-bashing, alas, is a major exception). Most Americans voted for Barack Obama even though they (wrongly) believed he was raise their taxes. There isn't much proof that Americans really oppose spending on social welfare programs. Even on social issues, this was a pretty good year for liberals (outside of gay rights), winning battles on abortion, marijuana, and assisted suicide.
The fact is that, at the moment, conservative governance is not all that popular. They can talk all they want about how conservatives "abandoned conservative principles", but if they respond to this election by lurching even further to the right, they're going to spend a long time out in the cold.
This, to put it mildly, is tough to swallow in the face of the evidence. The fact is that there are several seats in deep red territory that are now Democratic directly resulting from Republican intolerance of moderate politicians. The Maryland first, gerrymandered specifically to elect a Republican, will be sending a Democrat to Congress after a right-wing challenger knocked off a moderate incumbent who would have assuredly cruised to re-election. The Michigan 7th saw the same thing -- a right-winger who defeated a moderate incumbent in 2006 got defeated in 2008. Bill Sali, the furthest right-wing candidate in a multi-member primary in 2006, lost his Idaho(!) seat this year to a Democrat. The blood red 2nd Ohio district is competitive every year because Jean Schmidt is their representative. And so on.
Put more broadly, there is very little proof that "pure" conservative principles enjoy broad popularity in the United States (gay-bashing, alas, is a major exception). Most Americans voted for Barack Obama even though they (wrongly) believed he was raise their taxes. There isn't much proof that Americans really oppose spending on social welfare programs. Even on social issues, this was a pretty good year for liberals (outside of gay rights), winning battles on abortion, marijuana, and assisted suicide.
The fact is that, at the moment, conservative governance is not all that popular. They can talk all they want about how conservatives "abandoned conservative principles", but if they respond to this election by lurching even further to the right, they're going to spend a long time out in the cold.
Friday, August 01, 2008
McDonald's Exposed!
I read this from the FRC on McDonald's support for gay rights, and my suspicion sensor immediately started ringing:
Nobody describes themselves as supporting "the gay agenda" -- its rhetoric only used byhomophobic bigots groups like the FRC. And sure enough, it appears that the "quote" is actually a paraphrase from the AFA.
A stupid typo. Perhaps -- although the FRC's purposeful modification of "they" to "we" at the start indicates that it wasn't entirely an innocent oversight.
At worst, really sleazy, at best, just another indicator of the "quality" of the FRC's operation.
When asked by our friend Don Wildmon, President of the American Family Association, to remain neutral in the debate, McDonald's said, "[we] will continue to support the gay agenda including same-sex marriage."
Nobody describes themselves as supporting "the gay agenda" -- its rhetoric only used by
A stupid typo. Perhaps -- although the FRC's purposeful modification of "they" to "we" at the start indicates that it wasn't entirely an innocent oversight.
At worst, really sleazy, at best, just another indicator of the "quality" of the FRC's operation.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
FRC on Helms
I guess there was never any real doubt their "tribute" would go something like this:
Still, that was rather more explicit than most in praising Helms "principle" of never giving up on White Supremacy (what do you think Mother Jones was talking about?).
Perhaps one of the most profound tributes to the life of Senator Jesse Helms comes from an unlikely source, the ultra-left magazine Mother Jones. In a 1995 profile of the staunchly conservative senator, the reporter observed, "Unlike many of his Republican counterparts, Helms has changed little over the past 50 years." Where the Left may see unrelenting dedication to principle as a character flaw, we salute a gentleman who was unwavering in his convictions and devoted to faith, family and freedom. Unlike the many who are changed and influenced by their time of service in this city, Senator Helms was among the few who have changed this city and influenced the world. He stood for strength in our foreign policy and partnered with Ronald Reagan in the effort to bring down communism. He unflinchingly withstood mockery from radical abortion activists in defending the unborn. With his death this July 4th, the conservative movement lost a true leader. Our thoughts and prayers are with his wife, Dot, and their family.
Still, that was rather more explicit than most in praising Helms "principle" of never giving up on White Supremacy (what do you think Mother Jones was talking about?).
Monday, May 05, 2008
As Usual, It's Teh Fault of Teh Gay
Shorter FRC: The recent raid on the FLDS -- a sect which has existed for over 100 years -- shows that teh gay are destroying American civilization, and that teenagers can never be allowed to have sex. That being said, is nobody thinking of the parents in this situation? What about their rights?
The only criminals in this account are gays and horny teenagers. The only victims are the adults who rape teenagers and the parents who put their kids in this situation.
Family values, FTW!
The only criminals in this account are gays and horny teenagers. The only victims are the adults who rape teenagers and the parents who put their kids in this situation.
Family values, FTW!
Thursday, April 24, 2008
"Down To Earth Day"
Did the Family Research Council just come out against Earth Day? Yes, yes, they did:
Okay....
Today isn't just another reminder to use recycled paper or drive energy-efficient cars. It's a calculated attack on the sanctity of human life.
Okay....
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Less Black Babies
I spend a lot of free time blasting the FRC, often for concocting phony-scandals, so credit where it's due: this is genuinely appalling. I was at first hesitant to give a link, because I frankly don't trust the FRC further than I can throw them, but mainstream press (in the form of the Idaho Statesman) has picked it up, so tragically, this looks real. Basically, a pro-life activist masqueraded as a donor who wanted to give a gift to Planned Parenthood of Idaho, earmarked for the specific purpose of aborting Black babies.
This is, in a word, appalling. It's flagrantly racist, and Planned Parenthood should be ashamed. As Feministing notes, it plays right into the right-wing talking points about race and abortion. PP refuses to say whether it's taken any further action against the offending employee. Is there seriously any question over whether he should still have a job?
The call to Idaho came in July to Autumn Kersey, vice president of development and marketing for Planned Parenthood of Idaho.
On the recording provided by The Advocate, an actor portraying a donor said he wanted his money used to eliminate black unborn children because "the less black kids out there the better."
Kersey laughed nervously and said: "Understandable, understandable. ... Excuse my hesitation, this is the first time I've had a donor call and make this kind of request, so I'm excited and want to make sure I don't leave anything out."
This is, in a word, appalling. It's flagrantly racist, and Planned Parenthood should be ashamed. As Feministing notes, it plays right into the right-wing talking points about race and abortion. PP refuses to say whether it's taken any further action against the offending employee. Is there seriously any question over whether he should still have a job?
Monday, January 07, 2008
The FRC Loves Judicial Review!
In China, anyway, where the high court has announced it will hear a case regarding forced abortion.
To be sure, the case they cite is rather appalling. A women who got pregnant prior to marriage was literally forced to have an abortion. Apparently, family planning officials "escorted her to a local abortion center, where her unborn child was given a lethal injection and later removed from the womb. Jin lost so much blood as a result of the procedure that she was hospitalized for six weeks and, in the seven years since, has been unable to conceive."
Yes, forcing women to make reproductive decisions against their will infuriates me too. It's a good thing the Chinese courts appear willing to intervene against the "law of the land" to stop it. Remember, Roe Rage isn't about legal theory, it's about results.
To be sure, the case they cite is rather appalling. A women who got pregnant prior to marriage was literally forced to have an abortion. Apparently, family planning officials "escorted her to a local abortion center, where her unborn child was given a lethal injection and later removed from the womb. Jin lost so much blood as a result of the procedure that she was hospitalized for six weeks and, in the seven years since, has been unable to conceive."
Yes, forcing women to make reproductive decisions against their will infuriates me too. It's a good thing the Chinese courts appear willing to intervene against the "law of the land" to stop it. Remember, Roe Rage isn't about legal theory, it's about results.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Be Bold
Keeping on the theme of faux boldness, I give you (via The FRC) Councilwoman Jacquie Sullivan of Bakersfield, California, who just voted to install displays including "In God We Trust," as well as historic documents like the Declaration of Independence and Constitution across the school district.
You tell 'em!
I'm reminded, as I so often am, of Futurama -- specifically, this passage from Earth President McNeil:
Nothing like speaking truth to power.
***
Link to the 2007 Weblog Award Polls: Vote Debate Link
It's not political, it's not religious. It's patriotism. We are a faith-based people for the most part," she said. "Sometimes you have to go with the majority."
You tell 'em!
I'm reminded, as I so often am, of Futurama -- specifically, this passage from Earth President McNeil:
Ladies and gentlemen, our course is clear. The time has come to knuckle under. To get down on all fours and really lick boot. Give our alien masters whatever they want!
Nothing like speaking truth to power.
***
Link to the 2007 Weblog Award Polls: Vote Debate Link
Friday, November 02, 2007
"Value Voters"
This a clip from the FRC's "Value Voters Summit." I wish, I wish, I wish these people were not mainstream political figures. But they are, and they're the Republican Party's baby.
Via Dave Neiwert, who adds:
It's a scary thing.
***
Link to the 2007 Weblog Award Polls: Vote Debate Link
Via Dave Neiwert, who adds:
You'll note, of course, the obvious eliminationism coursing through all this talk -- yet another clear indication of the political religious right's increasing fanaticism and xenophobia.
It's a scary thing.
***
Link to the 2007 Weblog Award Polls: Vote Debate Link
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Triple Play
I know anti-FRC blogging is like a bad drug habit, but I just can't kick. They are just so unbelievably hackish it manages to make my blood boil. Today's daily update by leader Tony Perkins is a perfect example.
The first item is an attack on Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, which they illustrate via someone holding a match to the constitution. Even if the Akaka Bill is a bad idea, I fail to see (and the FRC doesn't even purport to explain) what it has to do with the FRC's broader agenda -- except insofar as that agenda is "harass liberals," which, to be fair, is the only unifying thread I've ever seen in the FRC's work.
This is aptly demonstrated in the second item, which is a rant about Charlie Rangel's tax reform bill. What is breath-taking here is the perfidy with language. Rangel's bill would "increase taxes" on many "married couples" (what a meaningless phrase -- Bill and Melinda Gates are a "married couple"), but it would "increase welfare payments through the earned income credit," something you may know as the "Earned Income Tax Credit", but while the FRC can't stand policies that actually help working families, they wouldn't be caught dead opposing a tax cut, so hence we have our little omission. Perkins concludes:
Come on, Tony. Red-baiting is so 1950s.
Finally, the last item tries to diffuse the Democratic Congress' accomplishments writ large (on the occasion of the House's 1,000th roll call vote). Here, at least, some of their problems bear a relationship to the FRC's stated policy aims, such as "presents to the abortion/pro-death community by supporting Planned Parenthood and passing a bill to increase embryonic stem cell experimentation, and gifts to the homosexual lobby by voting on so-called 'hate crimes' legislation," they open the list with neither killing babies nor killing homosexuals, but rather by opposing the minimum wage hike (and here you thought that the anti-Marxism rant was a one-shot deal!). It is, as Perkins puts it, but a "gift to the labor unions." How horrid! The working class gets all the breaks.
If there is a difference between the FRC and the propaganda arm of the RNC, I'm just not seeing it.
The first item is an attack on Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, which they illustrate via someone holding a match to the constitution. Even if the Akaka Bill is a bad idea, I fail to see (and the FRC doesn't even purport to explain) what it has to do with the FRC's broader agenda -- except insofar as that agenda is "harass liberals," which, to be fair, is the only unifying thread I've ever seen in the FRC's work.
This is aptly demonstrated in the second item, which is a rant about Charlie Rangel's tax reform bill. What is breath-taking here is the perfidy with language. Rangel's bill would "increase taxes" on many "married couples" (what a meaningless phrase -- Bill and Melinda Gates are a "married couple"), but it would "increase welfare payments through the earned income credit," something you may know as the "Earned Income Tax Credit", but while the FRC can't stand policies that actually help working families, they wouldn't be caught dead opposing a tax cut, so hence we have our little omission. Perkins concludes:
The overall proposal resembles more a Marxist proposal of redistributing income than something worthy of the leaders of the free world. I'd agree with Congressman Rangel that the tax system needs a major overhaul, but more in the direction of simplicity and equality, not of a socialistic labyrinth.
Come on, Tony. Red-baiting is so 1950s.
Finally, the last item tries to diffuse the Democratic Congress' accomplishments writ large (on the occasion of the House's 1,000th roll call vote). Here, at least, some of their problems bear a relationship to the FRC's stated policy aims, such as "presents to the abortion/pro-death community by supporting Planned Parenthood and passing a bill to increase embryonic stem cell experimentation, and gifts to the homosexual lobby by voting on so-called 'hate crimes' legislation," they open the list with neither killing babies nor killing homosexuals, but rather by opposing the minimum wage hike (and here you thought that the anti-Marxism rant was a one-shot deal!). It is, as Perkins puts it, but a "gift to the labor unions." How horrid! The working class gets all the breaks.
If there is a difference between the FRC and the propaganda arm of the RNC, I'm just not seeing it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
