Dana started out the third hour of her show on Wednesday with South Dakota GOP Senate Candidate Annette Bosworth. She had an odd news conference where her staffers pasted her campaign posters with some of the bad things people say about her on the Internet. She said all you would need to do is Google her name with one of those words and you'll find the things people said about her. Dana loved it, and felt that Democrats should literally eat those words.
This is something called misogyny. This doesn't happen to just Republican women, it happens to ALL women. From Michelle Obama, to Nancy Pelosi, to Michelle Bachmann, to Sarah Palin, all have had to deal with this kind of thing. Heck, Dana has to deal with it, but so does Stephanie Miller, and Randi Rhodes. I implore you to think of a vile term for a woman (if you can), and Google it with any of the names above as Ms. Bosworth is asking you to do, and you'll find they all get called these sort of names. This is not something that is exclusive to Republican/Conservative women. There are a lot of people out there who don't have that filter the rest of us do.
It is funny how Dana was quick to defend Ms. Bosworth at the top of hour
three on Wednesday, but later she is quick to attack Sandra Fluke. I
don't know what is more troubling, her revelation that Ms. Fluke will
wind up living with a bunch of cats and saying it's not mean if it is
true, or that she can't wait for Ms. Fluke to lose so she doesn't have
to hear from her again. Dana, a staunch supporter of the first
amendment when it suits her, would rather silence someone with a
different opinion than allow them to have it. I wonder where I've seen
that before.
But this was just another instance for Dana to bash the #yesallwomen campaign. On yesterday's show, she equated them to women looking for free birth control. But go out to Twitter and look at the #yesallwomen feed, and you'll see something surprisingly different. Women are telling their stories of misogyny, including how they have been beaten for not giving men sex. Why can't Dana empathize with them? Is it because she perceives all of them to be whining Liberals?
Dana pivoted off that point to say Liberals don't give a darn about the real misogyny in this world, how Muslim men treat their women, siting Meriam Ibrahim, a woman sentenced to death in Sudan for marrying a Christian man. Which fails on two levels. First, Liberals do care (she may be released soon due to world wide protests). Second, just because other women in the world are mistreated, doesn't mean women here aren't mistreated as well.The second is most important, because even if no "feminist" cared about Meriam Ibrahim, that doesn't excuse what happens to women everyday here in America.
Dana said on Friday that it is nothing but man hating going on in the #yesallwomen feed. I beg to differ. This article by Estelle Tang that I found while looking at the feed illustrates how it is being a woman in this world. If you have something sexist happen to you everyday, then a guy kills seven people, and claimed before his rampage he was going to kill as many women as possible because they deprived him of sex; I'm not a woman, but I'm sure my reaction would be like many on the #yesallwomen feed.
Saturday, May 31, 2014
Sunday, May 25, 2014
Right gets it wrong on honors night
Cole Middle School Cancels Honors Night
So this story had the right all in a tizzy, including Dana. Can't fault them, though. It did have a juicy line:
So, they cancelled Honors Night. First things first, what the heck is Honors Night? All I know is it is held after school hours, and include awards found in this school pdf on page 18. I am not aware if it is a dinner or not.
Who attends this function? Well, I'd have to guess, but I believe it would be the students and parents of the award winners, and faculty. This is where the exclusivity comes in. I am guessing very few non award winning students come.
It you were to win an award, wouldn't you want to accept it in front of the largest audience? Is that, in fact, what happened? They didn't cancel the awards, just the night. They planned on having the awards ceremony as an in school event Who stands to benefit from this change? To me, it's not the students who don't win awards, as they now have to be in the room when the awards are given. So if the award winners are the ones to benefit, as they can now lord their achievement over a larger audience, who complained about the exclusive nature of Honors Night? Could it be the award winners themselves? Quite possibly.
Forgetting my speculation here, they still didn't cancel the awards, so excellence was still being rewarded. Judging by almost every right wing pundit's reaction, they missed that point. To them, the school couldn't be bothered to reward excellence, in fact everyone gets to be number one. They couldn't be farther from the truth.
So this story had the right all in a tizzy, including Dana. Can't fault them, though. It did have a juicy line:
"Members of the school community have long expressed concerns related to the exclusive nature of Honors Night," the email stated.Nothing raises the ire (whether produced for her show, or real, who's to know) of Dana quite like "success shaming". Since they canceled Honors Night due to it's exclusive nature, the right were on it like rabid dogs. On the surface this looks like another case of success shaming. But look a little deeper, and you'll find something possibly less sinister.
So, they cancelled Honors Night. First things first, what the heck is Honors Night? All I know is it is held after school hours, and include awards found in this school pdf on page 18. I am not aware if it is a dinner or not.
Who attends this function? Well, I'd have to guess, but I believe it would be the students and parents of the award winners, and faculty. This is where the exclusivity comes in. I am guessing very few non award winning students come.
It you were to win an award, wouldn't you want to accept it in front of the largest audience? Is that, in fact, what happened? They didn't cancel the awards, just the night. They planned on having the awards ceremony as an in school event Who stands to benefit from this change? To me, it's not the students who don't win awards, as they now have to be in the room when the awards are given. So if the award winners are the ones to benefit, as they can now lord their achievement over a larger audience, who complained about the exclusive nature of Honors Night? Could it be the award winners themselves? Quite possibly.
Forgetting my speculation here, they still didn't cancel the awards, so excellence was still being rewarded. Judging by almost every right wing pundit's reaction, they missed that point. To them, the school couldn't be bothered to reward excellence, in fact everyone gets to be number one. They couldn't be farther from the truth.
Saturday, May 24, 2014
Fox debates and the Christian Bully
Fox debates. Fox loves them, because it kills two birds with one stone. They get to beat a Democrat, and they get to claim they have Democrats on Fox where MSNBC does not have Republicans. Although if you listen to some MSNBC hosts, it's not for lack of trying to get Republicans on their shows.
But the Fox debate goes something like this. The Fox host will start by explaining what is happening, usually slanting it to the Conservative/Republican side. Then the person they have chosen to argue for comes on. They are usually always Conservative/Republican. They get an easy softball question from the host, and they get all the time they need without interruption to explain their position.
Then, the lamb being led to slaughter comes on. They are almost always Democrat/Liberal. They get a pretty hard/leading question, and before they can get their full point out, they will be interrupted by the host to clarify, or to be shouted down by the Republican. Lather, rinse, repeat for around 9 minutes.
On Friday, May 16th, Dana was on the Kelly File. Martha MacCallum was guest hosting. Ever been in a classroom with a substitute teacher? No offense to Martha, but you knew something was going to happen the moment this started. Jessica Erlich was the Democrat lamb to be led to slaughter.
As you can see, not only did Martha tell Dana to pipe down at one point, she didn't do anything to defend Dana. And things got a little nasty. Here's my take on a few of the parts:
Disturbing? I don't find it disturbing that the Benham Brothers continued to flip homes for families on their own dime. But I do find it attention-seeking. What I find disturbing is that talk show hosts like Dana use that fact like a cudgel to beat all detractors over the head instead of debating the true point. You may as well have said, "They aren't attention-seeking, look at this thing they did to catch you attention." The real question is why are they not extremists? Souldn't you say something to refute this claim?
Instead of refuting Jessica's claim that the Benham brothers are extreme, Dana says the whole darn thing is anti-Christian bigotry. I would say that is shocking, but it is the latest conservative talking point when talking about the "homosexual" agenda. Jessica is offended by this statement, as most people should be. Nothing Jessica has said to this point approaches being anti-Christian. She has said the Benham Brothers are using their Christianity to further their political views. I, as a Christian, agree that if someone is doing this, it is disturbing to say the least.
Well, after some talking over each other, Dana finishes off strong telling Jessica, “You’ll learn more if you keep your mouth shut!” and the kicker, "If we’re going to have a theological discussion, let’s start with your name calling, your smearing of these brothers just because you’re an anti-Christian bigot!” I can almost hear the control booth in Martha's ear, "Go to commercial!" Dana wasn't done, though, She finishes with, "Your voice is shaking."
Now, Dana professes to be a Christian. She is also full of paradoxes. She heavily supports the second amendment. Yet when it comes to the 8th, she doesn't seem to care. When Oklahoma had their botched lethal injection, Dana thought the man didn't suffer enough. Yet the 8th amendment tells us the government can't inflict cruel and unusual punishment.
I fully expected to see a retraction and apology... oh, who am I kidding, Dana never admits she's wrong. In her blog post, Speaking Up For What's Right, Dana misses the mark on what being a Christian is. Here are a few of the low points:
So, in essence, Dana has fashioned herself into a Christian Bully. It wasn't bad to call Ms. Ehrlich an anti-Christian bigot, because Dana thought it was true. Just like a bully on the playground believes your face is ugly, so saying it isn't bad. Except instead of taking Ms. Ehrlich's lunch money, Dana reveled in the fact that she made her cry. With a smug grin, she said triumphantly at the end of the debate, "Your voice is shaking." I'm sorry, but that's not the kind of Christian values I can get behind.
But the Fox debate goes something like this. The Fox host will start by explaining what is happening, usually slanting it to the Conservative/Republican side. Then the person they have chosen to argue for comes on. They are usually always Conservative/Republican. They get an easy softball question from the host, and they get all the time they need without interruption to explain their position.
Then, the lamb being led to slaughter comes on. They are almost always Democrat/Liberal. They get a pretty hard/leading question, and before they can get their full point out, they will be interrupted by the host to clarify, or to be shouted down by the Republican. Lather, rinse, repeat for around 9 minutes.
On Friday, May 16th, Dana was on the Kelly File. Martha MacCallum was guest hosting. Ever been in a classroom with a substitute teacher? No offense to Martha, but you knew something was going to happen the moment this started. Jessica Erlich was the Democrat lamb to be led to slaughter.
As you can see, not only did Martha tell Dana to pipe down at one point, she didn't do anything to defend Dana. And things got a little nasty. Here's my take on a few of the parts:
ESSICA ERLICH: What I find sad and disturbing is that really what you have here are two attention-seeking reality television wannabe appearing brothers who are political activists who have an extreme agenda, and are trying to cloak it in this, sort of, you know, religious freedom characterization, and using that as a way to get, you know, their own business and drive that. And I find that very disturbing....
DANA LOESCH: Well, I have to jump into Jessica’s remark, I wonder if she finds it disturbing and attention-seeking that the brothers were actually committed still to the six families whose homes they were flipping for this television show. They had already started production and when HGTV pulled it, the brothers continued on their time and on their own dime, I might add, to continue their promise and fulfill what they said they were going to do with these families.
Disturbing? I don't find it disturbing that the Benham Brothers continued to flip homes for families on their own dime. But I do find it attention-seeking. What I find disturbing is that talk show hosts like Dana use that fact like a cudgel to beat all detractors over the head instead of debating the true point. You may as well have said, "They aren't attention-seeking, look at this thing they did to catch you attention." The real question is why are they not extremists? Souldn't you say something to refute this claim?
ERLICH: That has nothing to do with their political beliefs.Well, it is big enough for all of us. Dana is someone who characterizes Moms Demand Action so many bad ways, however. I do not feel she stands on steady ground when she preaches to us about just getting along.
LOESCH: Well, you just said that you found it disturbing. I just don’t understand the anti-Christian bigotry. I mean the world is big enough for all of us, don’t you think?
Instead of refuting Jessica's claim that the Benham brothers are extreme, Dana says the whole darn thing is anti-Christian bigotry. I would say that is shocking, but it is the latest conservative talking point when talking about the "homosexual" agenda. Jessica is offended by this statement, as most people should be. Nothing Jessica has said to this point approaches being anti-Christian. She has said the Benham Brothers are using their Christianity to further their political views. I, as a Christian, agree that if someone is doing this, it is disturbing to say the least.
Well, after some talking over each other, Dana finishes off strong telling Jessica, “You’ll learn more if you keep your mouth shut!” and the kicker, "If we’re going to have a theological discussion, let’s start with your name calling, your smearing of these brothers just because you’re an anti-Christian bigot!” I can almost hear the control booth in Martha's ear, "Go to commercial!" Dana wasn't done, though, She finishes with, "Your voice is shaking."
Now, Dana professes to be a Christian. She is also full of paradoxes. She heavily supports the second amendment. Yet when it comes to the 8th, she doesn't seem to care. When Oklahoma had their botched lethal injection, Dana thought the man didn't suffer enough. Yet the 8th amendment tells us the government can't inflict cruel and unusual punishment.
I fully expected to see a retraction and apology... oh, who am I kidding, Dana never admits she's wrong. In her blog post, Speaking Up For What's Right, Dana misses the mark on what being a Christian is. Here are a few of the low points:
I have friends and members of my own family who are gay, I have friends and family members who believe whole-heartedly that abortion is fantastic, and magically, we still all get along. I am not hurt if they do not share my beliefs no more than they are hurt that I do not share theirs. I care about these people, which is why I would never go out of my way to hurt them, especially over what we believe.Whenever you see someone use the "friend argument" you should know it's history. People don't look too kindly when this defense is used. I can't see why Dana would use it here.
It’s why it floors me that people like Ms. Ehrlich, who I’m sure prides herself on “equality” and compassion, would go out of her way to malign the characters of two men whose only crime seems to be that they are Christians. Perhaps she was not raised in a diverse environment and didn’t learn to coexist with people who think differently than she, but it’s about time she learned.People like Ms. Ehrlich? You do realize you should never use a phrase like, "people like you", unless it is followed by, "because you are a good person". And the crime isn't that they are Christians, but that they have extreme Christian views. And since Ms. Ehrlich is half Jewish, who's father and grandmother survived Nazi Germany, and has a mother who is an evangelical Christian, I'm pretty sure she had a diverse environment growing up.
I am not going to be misled into believing that I should be meek about my faith to appease those who do not share it, I am not going to be meek in defending other people of faith, or defending my faith, period, when it is unfairly maligned such as it was this evening. It is not a pejorative to say that someone is an anti-Christian bigot if, in fact, they are an anti-Christian bigot.Isn't there something in the bible about turning the other cheek? Meek shall inherit the Earth? I missed the one where he said to berate someone because you believe what you are saying is true.
People will feign more offense over the title than the action and the action must change before the label will. Do not allow yourself to be driven away from expressing or sharing your faith. Hold yourself to a standard of love, but the bottom line is that the truth isn’t mean, it’s the truth.But, " the truth isn’t mean, it’s the truth", isn't a Christian belief, it's Breitbart's Rule #12. Breitbart, I am lead to believe, was himself not a Christian.
So, in essence, Dana has fashioned herself into a Christian Bully. It wasn't bad to call Ms. Ehrlich an anti-Christian bigot, because Dana thought it was true. Just like a bully on the playground believes your face is ugly, so saying it isn't bad. Except instead of taking Ms. Ehrlich's lunch money, Dana reveled in the fact that she made her cry. With a smug grin, she said triumphantly at the end of the debate, "Your voice is shaking." I'm sorry, but that's not the kind of Christian values I can get behind.
I have friends and members of my own family who are gay, I have friends and family members who believe whole-heartedly that abortion is fantastic, and magically, we still all get along. I am not hurt if they do not share my beliefs no more than they are hurt that I do not share theirs. I care about these people, which is why I would never go out of my way to hurt them, especially over what we believe. - See more at: http://danaloeschradio.com/speaking-up-for-what-is-right/#sthash.R1adafl8.dpuf
I have friends and members of my own family who are gay, I have friends and family members who believe whole-heartedly that abortion is fantastic, and magically, we still all get along. I am not hurt if they do not share my beliefs no more than they are hurt that I do not share theirs. I care about these people, which is why I would never go out of my way to hurt them, especially over what we believe. - See more at: http://danaloeschradio.com/speaking-up-for-what-is-right/#sthash.R1adafl8.dpuf
I have friends and members of my own family who are gay, I have friends and family members who believe whole-heartedly that abortion is fantastic, and magically, we still all get along. I am not hurt if they do not share my beliefs no more than they are hurt that I do not share theirs. I care about these people, which is why I would never go out of my way to hurt them, especially over what we believe. - See more at: http://danaloeschradio.com/speaking-up-for-what-is-right/#sthash.R1adafl8.dpuf
I have friends and members of my own family who are gay, I have friends and family members who believe whole-heartedly that abortion is fantastic, and magically, we still all get along. I am not hurt if they do not share my beliefs no more than they are hurt that I do not share theirs. I care about these people, which is why I would never go out of my way to hurt them, especially over what we believe. - See more at: http://danaloeschradio.com/speaking-up-for-what-is-right/#sthash.R1adafl8.dpuf
Thursday, May 22, 2014
What is this?
In this blog, I intend to point out the absurdity that is Right-Wing radio. I will focus on Dana Loesch. When I see something she gets wrong, or when she does something that offends, and I have time, I'll post it here. If I have another general observation, whether it be about left or right politics, I'll post it here, too.
I grew up Republican. I actually believe I was at one point a conservative. But I have changed. I still count myself as a Republican, but I am a lot more moderate now. The more I listen to Rush, Hannity, and Dana though, the less conservative I am. Because I'm not liking what I am hearing. This is not the Republican party I grew up with.
I've tried posting at Dana's Facebook page, but you can't have an opposing opinion there. Look at her May 18th post titled, "Bloomberg "Moms" target another fast food joint" and you'll see she replies to someone named Jeff... but nobody named Jeff posted before her. It's Hypocrisy at it's finest.
Did Dana not tweet this?
The Moms Demand people apparently have a problem with the 1st Amendment in addition to the 2nd.
That was in response to Moms Demand not liking The View having Dana guest host. Never mind that Moms Demand isn't the government, and can't take Dana's right to free speech away. It's her first amendment right to be on The View. Or for the Robertsons to have a TV show, or the Benham Brothers to have their TV show. But to post an opposing opinion on her Facebook page? That can't happen.
Here comes Deconstructing Dana. I'll remember to keep it civil like I always do. Enjoy!
I grew up Republican. I actually believe I was at one point a conservative. But I have changed. I still count myself as a Republican, but I am a lot more moderate now. The more I listen to Rush, Hannity, and Dana though, the less conservative I am. Because I'm not liking what I am hearing. This is not the Republican party I grew up with.
I've tried posting at Dana's Facebook page, but you can't have an opposing opinion there. Look at her May 18th post titled, "Bloomberg "Moms" target another fast food joint" and you'll see she replies to someone named Jeff... but nobody named Jeff posted before her. It's Hypocrisy at it's finest.
Did Dana not tweet this?
The Moms Demand people apparently have a problem with the 1st Amendment in addition to the 2nd.
That was in response to Moms Demand not liking The View having Dana guest host. Never mind that Moms Demand isn't the government, and can't take Dana's right to free speech away. It's her first amendment right to be on The View. Or for the Robertsons to have a TV show, or the Benham Brothers to have their TV show. But to post an opposing opinion on her Facebook page? That can't happen.
Here comes Deconstructing Dana. I'll remember to keep it civil like I always do. Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)