Queen City Soapbox is Back! Ethan comments on shopping at Kenwood Town Center. He hits the parking problem and I can say that it was horrible the Saturday before this past weekend, so it must have been worse Sunday.
Let's hope Ethan and/or Chris comes back into the blogger world! The posts have been sparse over there and there commentary is missed.
Tuesday, December 23, 2003
Fair and Unbalanced: Faux News
A "story" on "Religious Restrictions or Religious Censorship?" is on the front page of FOX News. It is unsigned, but included a reference to a video report. I can't really find anything more biased than this so far this week. It not only paints a false picture it states this little tidbit as if it were bad:
What is the purpose of religious displays? The purpose and the intent are to promote the religion and gain followers, money and power. Why should certain groups be allowed to do that? I just don't understand what logical reason there would be to push religion in public areas other than to try and instill a theocracy.
What would be nice if FOX News would just give up their "Fair and Balanced" claim. With stories like this one, it is clear they don't want to be balanced, they want be biased and make the people that like them think they are being fair to "them." The "them" in this case is "us." Now when I say "us" I don't mean "them." Now again, when I say "us" I really mean "me, Al Franken."
If anyone got that poor joke/cultural reference, they might win a prize. Otherwise, just give Faux News the bird this holiday season.
Still, the number of bans on public displays of Christianity continue to grow. And while those symbols may have little value alone, many Christians fear that taken as a whole, that kind of intolerance will wind up creating not freedom of religion but freedom from religion in this country.Now, first, it is not intolerant to keep religion out of public areas, that is a biased statement. It is intolerant when you feel the need to push your religion on others, just because they don't comply with your religious code. Second, what is wrong with freedom from religion? Why should I have to have my tax dollars go toward anyone else's religion practices?
What is the purpose of religious displays? The purpose and the intent are to promote the religion and gain followers, money and power. Why should certain groups be allowed to do that? I just don't understand what logical reason there would be to push religion in public areas other than to try and instill a theocracy.
What would be nice if FOX News would just give up their "Fair and Balanced" claim. With stories like this one, it is clear they don't want to be balanced, they want be biased and make the people that like them think they are being fair to "them." The "them" in this case is "us." Now when I say "us" I don't mean "them." Now again, when I say "us" I really mean "me, Al Franken."
If anyone got that poor joke/cultural reference, they might win a prize. Otherwise, just give Faux News the bird this holiday season.
Are You Shitting Me?
The Post has an editorial that sounds familiar to me. I don't know where I could have read this story before.
Oh, and you're welcome! Ah, well, you better thank Atrios instead.
Oh, and you're welcome! Ah, well, you better thank Atrios instead.
A Glimmer of Hope?
The courts have dismissed a lawsuit trying to overturn the Hate Crimes Ordinance passed by City Council.
The lawsuit was brought by Sam Malone, Tom Brinkman, and CCV member Mark Miller.
Let us review here: two elected officials tried to prevent homosexuals from getting treated like the protections afford to people based on race, sex, national origin, ethnicity, and religion. Now, why would they oppose protection for homosexuals, but not oppose protections for people based on religion? Hmmm, I wonder why?
I understand how the CCV stand. They don't hold back. They hate gays. They want gays kept second class citizens or just weeded out of the society all together. What is with our two elected officials?
Brinkman is not really a mystery. He is a paleo-conservative. He wants to return to a time when a female exposing her ankles was considered public nudity.
I don't get Malone. What does he have against gays? Malone was the lone GOP pro-choice candidate for council, but he has a thing against gays. People have varied views that on some levels don't seem to go together well, at least not logically.
The lawsuit was brought by Sam Malone, Tom Brinkman, and CCV member Mark Miller.
Let us review here: two elected officials tried to prevent homosexuals from getting treated like the protections afford to people based on race, sex, national origin, ethnicity, and religion. Now, why would they oppose protection for homosexuals, but not oppose protections for people based on religion? Hmmm, I wonder why?
I understand how the CCV stand. They don't hold back. They hate gays. They want gays kept second class citizens or just weeded out of the society all together. What is with our two elected officials?
Brinkman is not really a mystery. He is a paleo-conservative. He wants to return to a time when a female exposing her ankles was considered public nudity.
I don't get Malone. What does he have against gays? Malone was the lone GOP pro-choice candidate for council, but he has a thing against gays. People have varied views that on some levels don't seem to go together well, at least not logically.
Webster Out as Cincinnati FOP President
Sgt. Harry Roberts is the new President. Was this voluntary or was Webster forced out? I assume it was by choice. I don't see any internal divisions in the CPD, but one never knows and the WLWT story lacks much detail.
Webster's recent actions in the wake of the Nathaniel Jones death were horrid. He fueled the flames of anger with his selfish comments at a time when he could have voiced his opinions in private, and not pissed off the black community. He will not be missed.
UPDATE: The Enquirer has the vote details. Webster was defeated in the election. He was defeated nearly 2 to 1. Fangman is back as VP. How big a deal is this? What caused the revolt?
Webster's recent actions in the wake of the Nathaniel Jones death were horrid. He fueled the flames of anger with his selfish comments at a time when he could have voiced his opinions in private, and not pissed off the black community. He will not be missed.
UPDATE: The Enquirer has the vote details. Webster was defeated in the election. He was defeated nearly 2 to 1. Fangman is back as VP. How big a deal is this? What caused the revolt?
Money Mistake
I loved how Money Magazine screwed up calling West Chester by its old name, Union Township. I find one problem calling this one of the best places to live. What they fail to mention is the problems they are having with such fast growing area. The schools and the government services can't catch up, and since the area is not a municipality, taxes are not easy to raise. This puts more stress on Bulter County, talking away from the rest of county. I would like to see what portion of City of Hamilton residents sale tax payments are used to fund police and other supports for West Chester Township. West Chester needs to incorporate into a city. That will raise taxes and keep people out though, so I guess they may sponge off the rest of the county for a while longer.
Post's Story. What is sad about this is that both papers found out about this story from a wire report.
Post's Story. What is sad about this is that both papers found out about this story from a wire report.
Kitna 'Outrage' Story Part II
The Enquirer's story on the "Kitna hats" tries to go "deeper," but does it make it more than it appears. Where there only 500 hats sold in total? Who else sold the hats? How many other locals sold the hats? If "hundreds" bought them, is that a story?
Did the fact that a Catholic focused store was making a big deal out of this amount to a story? I know many don't like to bring up the differences between the Christian sects, but at its core is that not part of the story. I don't think Kitna is a Catholic, and wearing a hat like this would not be an expression of faith that I don't think would get much approval from a priest. If it got support after the fact, I still don't think that would be an acceptable tone for most Catholics. Evangelical Christians, which I assumed is Kitna's sect, are more often the in your face type of groups.
I think the story should have mentioned that various sects and that at a minimum indicate that a Catholic group was support Kitna's action.
From the story people need to stop invoking freedom of speech and freedom of religion when ever someone is prevented from doing what they want to do. The first amendment generally only applies to the actions of the government. The NFL can keep religious expression out in any form it wants from its action and its employees. It could keep out a specific religion if it so choose as well. It might loose a tax break if it did that and would loose a bunch of business, but that is about it.
UPDATE: The Post chimes in with an editorial that is all over the map. They say that yes Kitna techinically violated the rules and you can't make exceptions, but that it is no big deal. They however pumped up efforts to sell the hats. Does Scripps get a cut from "Kitna Hat" sales?
Did the fact that a Catholic focused store was making a big deal out of this amount to a story? I know many don't like to bring up the differences between the Christian sects, but at its core is that not part of the story. I don't think Kitna is a Catholic, and wearing a hat like this would not be an expression of faith that I don't think would get much approval from a priest. If it got support after the fact, I still don't think that would be an acceptable tone for most Catholics. Evangelical Christians, which I assumed is Kitna's sect, are more often the in your face type of groups.
I think the story should have mentioned that various sects and that at a minimum indicate that a Catholic group was support Kitna's action.
From the story people need to stop invoking freedom of speech and freedom of religion when ever someone is prevented from doing what they want to do. The first amendment generally only applies to the actions of the government. The NFL can keep religious expression out in any form it wants from its action and its employees. It could keep out a specific religion if it so choose as well. It might loose a tax break if it did that and would loose a bunch of business, but that is about it.
UPDATE: The Post chimes in with an editorial that is all over the map. They say that yes Kitna techinically violated the rules and you can't make exceptions, but that it is no big deal. They however pumped up efforts to sell the hats. Does Scripps get a cut from "Kitna Hat" sales?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)