It's Official, Tom and Pat are both in the race on the GOP side for Congress. This opens up the GOP's endorsement for Mayor, for now. Brinkman has until I think around the end of May to get into the Mayor's race. Who else will the GOP put up for slaughter? Pepper is jumping for joy right about now.
UPDATE: Portman? What was I thinking. The title was changed in case you are paying attention.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
"Mongo only pawn... in game of life"
Yes, I met the Dean last Friday night. The moment felt like a summit. It was like being in Iceland or maybe even Yalta. I want nothing to do with the Dean-Spencer spat. The picture is funny though.
Theocracy on the March: Episode #323
Ken Blackwell appears to be the darling of the extreme right wing of the GOP for the Governor's race. I did not know Blackwell was willing to become the theocrat's bitch. Ken struck me as a Republican, but not a reactionary. If he hangs his hat on religious extremists, he will loose the primary and the general election
Not only does this article talk about Ken Blackwell, it goes on to discuss bigot Phil Burress and his new "movement" to push theocracy on Ohio. The Ohio Restoration Project is just a few synonyms away from Christian Reconstructionists.
Not only does this article talk about Ken Blackwell, it goes on to discuss bigot Phil Burress and his new "movement" to push theocracy on Ohio. The Ohio Restoration Project is just a few synonyms away from Christian Reconstructionists.
Drinking Liberally Welcomes Robert Wilson
Council Candidate Robert Wilson will be joining the folks at Drinking Liberally tonight to discuss the issues facing the city. 7:30 PM at the Comet in Northside.
More from HMS.
More from HMS.
Monday, March 28, 2005
Brinkman Running for Congress
Steve Fritsch of Blue Chip Review is is reporting the Ohio House Member Tom Brinkman will run for Rob Portman's seat in Congress.
No other details are out there and Steve indicates he got it from the horse's mouth. This makes for an interesting choice for the GOP. Do you run DeWine and make for a big party fight? My vote, Hell Yes! Let the blood letting begin!
No other details are out there and Steve indicates he got it from the horse's mouth. This makes for an interesting choice for the GOP. Do you run DeWine and make for a big party fight? My vote, Hell Yes! Let the blood letting begin!
Sunday, March 27, 2005
Nope
To answer Wes's question: "Y'think...
...the Enquirer will spend an entire Sunday Forum on what Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists think on their holy days?" Answer: Never. Which is what really makes all of the talk about religion in this society so sad. Those who push it do so for profit reasons and/or for religious reasons. There is nothing altruistic about covering a particular religion, especially in a publication that tries to be mainstream, appealing to everyone across the board. Religion is the thing that should not be based on majority rules, therefore all shall follow. Religion should be kept in your home and place of worship. It does nothing but offend people when it is made public. Those who think that the media talking about it will somehow attract new converts prove my point that the motivations are not about journalism, but about religion.
This goes deeper than the media. It happens in the corporate world in a similar way. Most major corporations go out of their way to keep religion out of the activities of the company. This pisses off those who seek to push their religion everywhere they go, but it ultimately works best in a country where religion is not a monolith.
Now, I am sure that I will piss off some whack job who has not yet read this far in the post. It they haven't then they will miss a big point. The Enquirer has every legal right to run the forum section they wish. Corporations can go fairly far legally as well in promoting religion. They don't have as much leeway as what is printed in a newspaper when it comes to employee relations and discrimination, but they still can freely promote religion. Where you can't do it is in the government and government agencies.
What I wish people would do however is to think about how life used to be, at least how it used to be in the stories of old. Religion was not something polite people discussed in public. Why did they not want to push their religion? Well, simple, you don't want to piss people off. You don't want to go on and on about how your minister and all men of the cloth should get married when talking to a Roman Catholic. That is rude. In the same vein, it is rude to assume everyone is religious at all and act as if everyone agrees on the subject when at work or at organizational functions. It is rude to speak of a god when it can be assumed that some don't share the belief of such. When you are in your house or your place of worship, you don't need to assume to do anything. If religion were kept personal and private life in a modern media world just might be a bit easier.
...the Enquirer will spend an entire Sunday Forum on what Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists think on their holy days?" Answer: Never. Which is what really makes all of the talk about religion in this society so sad. Those who push it do so for profit reasons and/or for religious reasons. There is nothing altruistic about covering a particular religion, especially in a publication that tries to be mainstream, appealing to everyone across the board. Religion is the thing that should not be based on majority rules, therefore all shall follow. Religion should be kept in your home and place of worship. It does nothing but offend people when it is made public. Those who think that the media talking about it will somehow attract new converts prove my point that the motivations are not about journalism, but about religion.
This goes deeper than the media. It happens in the corporate world in a similar way. Most major corporations go out of their way to keep religion out of the activities of the company. This pisses off those who seek to push their religion everywhere they go, but it ultimately works best in a country where religion is not a monolith.
Now, I am sure that I will piss off some whack job who has not yet read this far in the post. It they haven't then they will miss a big point. The Enquirer has every legal right to run the forum section they wish. Corporations can go fairly far legally as well in promoting religion. They don't have as much leeway as what is printed in a newspaper when it comes to employee relations and discrimination, but they still can freely promote religion. Where you can't do it is in the government and government agencies.
What I wish people would do however is to think about how life used to be, at least how it used to be in the stories of old. Religion was not something polite people discussed in public. Why did they not want to push their religion? Well, simple, you don't want to piss people off. You don't want to go on and on about how your minister and all men of the cloth should get married when talking to a Roman Catholic. That is rude. In the same vein, it is rude to assume everyone is religious at all and act as if everyone agrees on the subject when at work or at organizational functions. It is rude to speak of a god when it can be assumed that some don't share the belief of such. When you are in your house or your place of worship, you don't need to assume to do anything. If religion were kept personal and private life in a modern media world just might be a bit easier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)