"As for the those non-autograph seekers, Cunningham doesn't mince words. 'The readers of CityBeat do not represent the population of Greater Cincinnati,' he states broadly. 'Most of your readers can go to hell.'"Does he ever break character?
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Willie's Ego
Can Bill Cunningham's Ego possibly get an bigger?
Lying
Glenn Reynolds is asking whether Richard Charled is lying then or now. I have to ask Glenn, did Clarke lie under oath to the 9/11 commission? If yes, send him to jail. If not, then listen to what he says and come to the understanding that BushCo did not take terrorism as seriously as it could have and after 9/11 they were obsessed with Iraq to the point of looking for any mythical link to 9/11 or Al Queda they could conjure up.
One Nation, Indivisible
My views on the Pledge Case are not going to be a shock to anyone. I believe the laws adding "under God" to the Pledge are unconstitutional. I think why most people disagree with me are for two reasons, either they want a theocracy or they have a different view on what religion is.
To me a religion is the worship and/or acknowledgment of a god or gods or supernatural creator(s) or supernatural entities. That worship and/or acknowledgment can take the form of a belief or beliefs or set of beliefs or system of beliefs or ideas about a god or gods or supernatural creator(s) or supernatural entities.
Creating a law that both acknowledges their is a god and only one god (monotheism) is in view unconstitutional. This does not mean you can't say the pledge any way you can. I today will say "cod" instead of "god" if in public or "Zeus" if I feeling like making a stink. Otherwise I just don't say it. What is wrong is that I have to make that accommodation and set myself apart. That is where the harm comes in and why we should go back to to prior form of the Pledge.
Any time you see Newdow, the plaintiff, question about where laws come from or questioning why he does not believe in "God," then you know why this is a religious point of view. The intent of the law in 1954 was religious. The history argument does not hold water. It is a compromise position that avoids conflict. I can respect that position on the grounds that outlash against atheists resulting from this case has been amazing. I would expect far worse if the SCOTUS rules in Newdow's favor.
I don't think Newdow will win. I hope he does, but I don't think the Supremes will be able to sever themselves from their religious views. Even with Scalia recusing himself, I think 5 justices will not be willing to take the heat of the theocrats in the country.
What ever happens I expect things to get ugly in the world of public discourse. The Theocrats will react harshly no matter what happens, either by gloating and an emboldened appetite or by anger and fear.
I understand why many liberals felt Newdow was fighting a no win and not worthwhile battle, but I support him and am glad he has the courage to take the heat. I hope that the media tones down the exchanges on this issue. I know they won’t but I hope they don’t pump up the fears of the ignorant just for the sake of ratings. I could “pray” all day for that but 100 “gods” could not change the media in that respect.
To me a religion is the worship and/or acknowledgment of a god or gods or supernatural creator(s) or supernatural entities. That worship and/or acknowledgment can take the form of a belief or beliefs or set of beliefs or system of beliefs or ideas about a god or gods or supernatural creator(s) or supernatural entities.
Creating a law that both acknowledges their is a god and only one god (monotheism) is in view unconstitutional. This does not mean you can't say the pledge any way you can. I today will say "cod" instead of "god" if in public or "Zeus" if I feeling like making a stink. Otherwise I just don't say it. What is wrong is that I have to make that accommodation and set myself apart. That is where the harm comes in and why we should go back to to prior form of the Pledge.
Any time you see Newdow, the plaintiff, question about where laws come from or questioning why he does not believe in "God," then you know why this is a religious point of view. The intent of the law in 1954 was religious. The history argument does not hold water. It is a compromise position that avoids conflict. I can respect that position on the grounds that outlash against atheists resulting from this case has been amazing. I would expect far worse if the SCOTUS rules in Newdow's favor.
I don't think Newdow will win. I hope he does, but I don't think the Supremes will be able to sever themselves from their religious views. Even with Scalia recusing himself, I think 5 justices will not be willing to take the heat of the theocrats in the country.
What ever happens I expect things to get ugly in the world of public discourse. The Theocrats will react harshly no matter what happens, either by gloating and an emboldened appetite or by anger and fear.
I understand why many liberals felt Newdow was fighting a no win and not worthwhile battle, but I support him and am glad he has the courage to take the heat. I hope that the media tones down the exchanges on this issue. I know they won’t but I hope they don’t pump up the fears of the ignorant just for the sake of ratings. I could “pray” all day for that but 100 “gods” could not change the media in that respect.
Jerk
Ok, I regularly hit Peter Bronson hard on his columns. I really disagree with him on a majority of issues. From what I understand about Peter from those who know him personally is that is a "nice guy." With his latest column I see public opinion and personal lives affect directly by the actions of Bronson.
Peter wrote a column today about Reds announcer Marty Brennaman's voice being used in a WEBN commercial. Based on the quotes from Marty in the column it appears that Bronson was the person breaking the news to Marty that WEBN did that.
In reaction to the news Marty made this comment to Bronson:
For this action that makes Bronson a jerk. He did not have to bring the personal lives of Marty and Eddie Fingers into his column, but still write about the subject. That shows to me that he is trying at all costs to make WEBN look like the boogey man on all levels. I guess he will say they are baby eating Satanists who are sending the devil's music into the year of "our youth." I hope Bronson can make up for his actions by either publicly apologizing to Eddie Fingers or by maybe just dropping this anti-WEBN silliness.
For the record Marty Brennaman does have really thin skin. He can get his shorts in a wade at the drop of a hat and can hold a public feud better than anyone locally. His "fall-out" with Johnny Bench is legendary.
Peter wrote a column today about Reds announcer Marty Brennaman's voice being used in a WEBN commercial. Based on the quotes from Marty in the column it appears that Bronson was the person breaking the news to Marty that WEBN did that.
In reaction to the news Marty made this comment to Bronson:
Brennaman agreed. "I'm going to get on the phone right now and tell Clear Channel to take my voice off that thing. The last thing I would ever do is reflect poorly on this organization,'' he said of the Reds.So Peter has alienated two men who were friends. Bronson facilitated that by springing his news on Marty in hopes of just such a reaction and repudiation of WEBN, who seems to have offended Bronson's buddy and fellow theocrat Phil Burress.
WEBN shock jock "Eddie Fingers is a buddy of mine, but not anymore,'' Brennaman said.
For this action that makes Bronson a jerk. He did not have to bring the personal lives of Marty and Eddie Fingers into his column, but still write about the subject. That shows to me that he is trying at all costs to make WEBN look like the boogey man on all levels. I guess he will say they are baby eating Satanists who are sending the devil's music into the year of "our youth." I hope Bronson can make up for his actions by either publicly apologizing to Eddie Fingers or by maybe just dropping this anti-WEBN silliness.
For the record Marty Brennaman does have really thin skin. He can get his shorts in a wade at the drop of a hat and can hold a public feud better than anyone locally. His "fall-out" with Johnny Bench is legendary.
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Not Real, Not Now
MTV's "The Real World" will return to Philly after all. It would have been fun to see the kids making fools of themselves while at a bar somewhere, but alas not this year. I hope the Mayor and his PR man Brandon are pushing the idea for a future season of the real world. Cincinnati would really be a great place to have it, but we might be too small. The city would not be big enough for the caste to blend in. Everyone would want to see them in action, so they would be hounded were ever they went.
Sadgirlseven Live
Karen from sadgirlseven.net reports that she will be performing this Saturday the 27th at Pleasant Perk in Pleasant Ridge.
Grasping at Straws
Rob Bernard links to a Washington Times Article that claims to list bin Laden as a "collaborator." I guess if I were to find a CIA memo stating Mao was an American Spy that would be proof of something too. It is just amazing to lengths that right wing news outlets will go to try and buttress their deal leader. Well, in this case Dear Leader is not the one needing support, it is Number Two that needs the help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)