Indiana's religious freedom law

While it is April Fools Day, Dana's show today was not some sick joke.

First and foremost, meet Jess Dooley.  This is the woman that Dana called the American ISIS.  This is a woman who I think most people, for and against the law, could agree did wrong when she said she wanted to get a mob together to burn down Memories Pizza in Walkerton.  There's only one problem with Dana's reporting on this, however.  For the entire first hour, she called Jess a man.  I get it, she has a man's name.  But seriously Dana, how could you get something so obvious when you actually look into the facts so wrong?

And the whole thing about being surprised that the ABC affiliate in South Bend is on channel 57... the history behind that is pretty simple.  Anyone in broadcasting should know it.  When ABC lost Monday Night Football to ESPN, CBS also lost the NFC to Fox (they would later steal the AFC from NBC, and NBC would get a newly created Sunday Night game... but I digress).  Many stations who were on the lower part of the dial fled ABC for Fox, who had games on Sunday afternoon.  Chanel 28 moved to Fox two years before ABC 57 came along.  They also have NBC 16, and CBS 22. Nobody there is that low on the dial, because they are in a UHF island between Chicago (2, 5, 7, 9, 11) Grand Rapids (3, 8, 13) Lansing (6, 10) and Indy (4, 6, 8, 13).  Not that it matters now, since the digital age makes the numbers meaningless.

The point of all this is Indiana's Religious Freedom bill.  A bill that will allow discrimination in Indiana. It is true that there is no specific language in the bill that says Christians can discriminate against homosexuals.  No bill on its surface does spell out it's faults. It doesn't have to spell it out to be true, however.  It has two things other similar bills in other states don't.  It gives these religious rights to organizations, and there is no provision in Indiana law that protects homosexuals from discrimination.  To say this bill is exactly like the federal bill, or bills in most of the 19 other states who have a bill like this, is to say a Yugo and a Mercedes are exactly alike.  They both have four wheels, don't they?

ABC 57 ran a report last night, where a pizza place in Walkerton, Indiana stated they would not cater a gay wedding.  Now, I get religious freedom and all, but to me, that is blatantly discrimination. What they are basically saying is, because I don't like the idea of gay marriage, I shouldn't have to do business with gay people.  Because the bible I read when I was growing up (and as far as I know, it hasn't changed) doesn't say turn away the sinner.  On the contrary, there are several times Jesus himself says to be all inclusive.  He who is without sin throw the first stone? He that did these things to the least of these did them to me? Love God and love thy neighbor?  Forget the darn bill, when did Jesus give these people the power to turn away someone who clearly could use a little religion in their lives?

I don't think this is what is getting most people up in arms.  It is what the father said, about being gay being a choice.  Jess Dooley even included that in her tweet about burning the place down.  Medical science believes being gay is not a choice.  Gay people believe the same.  If it were a choice, in this day and age, it would be a pretty terrible choice, don't you think?  Not just because of the discrimination they deal with everyday from groups that don't agree with their lifestyle. They can't have children, and while there are ways to make it semi=possible today, only one of the couple can contribute DNA to the child.  Up until recently, they couldn't marry, and many of the rights straight couples had were out of their reach.  I could go on and on.

For the Jess Dooleys of the world, for the people who have gone out and given bad Yelp reviews, or bought the domain of Memories Pizza because they didn't and turned it into a gay pizzeria... please stop.  You aren't helping, either.  Fighting intolerance with intolerance is not going to work. You just give more fuel for people like Dana to stoke the fire with.  Because Dana knows how to stoke that fire.  She doesn't really need your help, she can and has manufactured what she needs out of thin air.  Could we please, on both sides, try to keep it civil for once?  Indiana thanks you.

A little geography lesson

IF ONLY THERE WAS A SAFER WAY ...

Safer is a relative term.  Because pipelines explode, too.  They also spill more in a year than oil transported by rail.  But let's not lose focus here.  Dana's not worried about safety, or she'd point out safety issues with pipelines, too.  No my friends, this is about Keystone XL.

Dana is trying to get us to forget two very important truths here.  One is that Keystone already has a pipeline, and it travels into Steele City, Nebraska, with a spur that goes into Illinois south of Galena, IL, where the latest train explosion occurred.

The other is that Keystone XL goes nowhere near Galena. So if something is travelling by rail in Galena, IL, it's not because we didn't approve XL, it's because oil companies are transporting oil by rail instead of pipeline by choice.

Only the northern section of XL has not been approved.  It actually comes from  Hardisty, Alberta and goes to Steele City, just like the original Keystone pipeline.  Some, like Dana, would say it creates jobs, lots of them, and forget any environmental issues, we need it and we need it now.  But it is not the jobs boon Dana says it is, it instead may be a boondoggle.

Cornell University did an independent study, and they state Keystone XL may be a job negative proposition.  Sure, there will be construction jobs.  Sure, there will be some permanent jobs. But the economic impact, especially higher gas prices that will come as they divert oil now going to the mid-west down to the Gulf for refining and export, will hurt jobs, possibly eliminating the jobs growth anyone that been touting.

But this one Factbook post is just the tip of the iceberg.  Dana's said a whole lot more on the subject. Unfortunately, the motive behind this push has to come into question.  Because Dana is not dumb enough to get it this wrong.

That time Dana said Democrats hated Jews

It must be March Madness.  Not even a minute seventeen (2:07 with opening teaser) into Dana's third hour on Tuesday, Dana pulled out the race card.  Yes, Dana pulled the race card.

While pulling out a speech from 2010, where Mexican President Calderon came and asked for better gun control and slammed Arizona's immigration law, Dana actually stated that Democrats loved the speech because Calderon was not a Jew.  But don't believe me, please, listen to the clip above.

She repeats it two more times as well.  It's not because they actually like the idea of gun control, or hate the Arizona immigration law... NO!  It's because they hate Jews.

On top of that, Dana insists MSNBC is the whitest cable television station.  They do have 4 African American hosts, and the first Latino host.  Where are the hosts of color on Fox, or the Blaze?

The question Chris Matthews asks, is who would allow a foreign leader come in and rest from the president control of US foreign policy.  Dana twists that to the Calderon speech, where he talks not of foreign policy, but our domestic policies that were hurting his country.  How is it she gets to slam Chris Matthews, a guy with a ton more political experience than she has?

Did Calderon insist we change our second amendment?  He did ask for a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban, but it was in place for ten years from 1994 to 2004, and in that time it held up to all constitutional challenges.  Calderon did not ask to change the second amendment.  On top of that, he actually said he respected it.

Dana gets away with too many lies.  What sickens me the most, however, is the maddeningly bad taste in which she used race card especially by someone who has decried the use of the race card over and again.  But because Dana likes polls, here's one for her.  Republican presidents dating back to papa Bush have never won more than 31% of the Jewish vote.  What this means if Dana is correct is that Dems hate Jews, but Jews love Dems.  How awkward is that relationship?  Must be just as awkward as having a majority of the KKK vote Republican, I guess.

So, who besides progressives gets banned from Dana''s Facebook page?

From the Dana Show Facebook page:

I don't know what is worse about this Facebook post.  The fact that it isn't Obama who is, "banning ammo", let alone by executive order, but the ATF who has reclassified a bullet (the 5.56-mm, Ball, M855) to armor piercing bullet, or this picture above.  I mean, I got kicked off her Facebook page because I had a differing opinion.  If this guy can post that, does that mean Dana agrees with the picture?

By the way, the ban does not include the Ball M193 A.K,A, Remington 223.  It may not be as desirable a bullet as the Ball M855, but it doesn't have a, "lead alloy core bullet with a steel penetrator" the M855 does, so it's pretty safe it will be around for a while.

***Update***

Nope, nothing to see here.  I guess only progressives get banned.

Dana on Brian Williams

I am amused that Dana is now very fascinated with the lies of Brian Williams. I actually applaud her. It is her right to cover those lies.  But there are two very blaring problems a person with her history has in doing so. For one, you cannot call someone a liar when your pants are pretty much on fire yourself, as I've pointed out several times in this blog. Hello, pot? It is the kettle calling!

Now here is the tricky part. The lies Bryan Williams told didn't advance some political agenda, they glorified Brian Williams. In essence, if you are fascinated by the lies of Brian Williams and bring them to the light of day no less than 6 times on Facebook alone, you may be a creepy conservative female stalker. Just saying.

Not that I think Brian needs to ever grace our televisions with his presence ever again.  Just pointing out the hypocrisy that, if I had the time/inclination, would be too easy to do on a daily basis.

Shameless Dan Carlin plug

One of my favorite podcasters is Dan Carlin.  His Hardcore History poscast gives us an in depth picture of a point in history, and currently he's going through the hamburger mill that was WWI.  I've learned a lot about that war I don't think I was ever taught in school, mostly about how gruesome the fighting was.

His Common Sense podcast focuses on current events.  It's usually shorter than an hour, but is highly insightful.  His most recent podcast, Show 286 - Dissin' & Dueling accentuates this point.  After listening to Dana go off on the religion of Islam, Dan is a bit of fresh air and brings a lot of thought to the mix.  I won't go over any of his points, because I wouldn't do them justice, although the fact that in this country in not the too distant past all the way back to the founding fathers (Alexander Hamilton shot in a duel with Burr) our history is full of people being offended, and taking someone else's life.

Dana has not been as thoughtful, or insightful.  I had never heard of #illridewithyou campaign until Dana mentioned it.  But she dismissed it because these same people should have been riding with Charlie Hebdo, instead.  While I do not tolerate acts of terrorism, I'm not lumping all 1.6 billion Muslims in with them, so Dana's comments were not helpful in my opinion.

Do you think people like Dana would lose their minds if Charlie Hebdo were in America and had not been attacked?  As in, the content of Charlie Hebdo isn't quite suited to Dana's sensibilities (although she seems to get a kick out of their cartoons critical of Muslims).  And I didn't catch Dana's TV show, but did she show any cartoons critical of Christianity?  Or Jewish?

Let's forget the fact that the policemen were armed, but outgunned, and one was himself a Muslim, something Dana also never seemed to bring up. I guess the big takeaway here is listen to more Dan Carlin.  You will come out more sane in the long run, in my opinion.

I've read a lot of stupid things...

I've read a lot of stupid things in my time.  Just today, I read that someone at Fox News reported that the Obama administration was outlawing doughnut sprinkles. You read that right. The truth is, Fox got their story from a satire website without realizing it.  You can't make this stuff up.

Of course this pales in comparison to what I just read in Hands Off My Gun.  Here's a bit from chapter 7:

Martin Luther King Jr. was denied a gun permit as a result of gun control law put into effect by white male Democrats.  Out of all the law-abiding, peace-loving people, this man was denied the means to protect himself while those who wished to do him harm for believing in equality were allowed to carry.  Dr. King was disarmed by Democrat laws. That is just one in a series of examples of the explicit racism behind left-wing gun grabs.

There is plenty wrong with what was said there. To start with, the way this is written, you would think Dr. King was denied gun ownership. Nothing is further from the truth. Dr. King had guns in his home, some would say he had an arsenal, when he requested that concealed carry permit. So really, he wasn't denied gun permits.  What he was denied was the right to conceal carry. That was in Alabama, in 1956. He would have also had to file in Tennessee in 1968, since that is where he was shot. And forget that he was shot from across the street, and a concealed carry would not have done much to protect him that day.

It wasn't long after he filed for a concealed carry permit that he decided that his gun ownership and peace movement were not compatible. He not only got rid of his guns, his bodyguards were also disarmed. Since Dana railed against celebrities having the right to have bodyguards with guns to protect them, Dana should be happy about that development.

The other issue I have with Dana's statement is the mixing of the terms Democrat, and left-wing when referring to the south in the 1950s. Strom Thurmand was a Democrat at the time. The Southern Dixiecrats changed political parties fast when Democrats Emanuel Celler, introduced the civil rights act, and Lyndon B. Johnson, signed it into law.  The south has always been conservative, and always will.

So it is ludicrous to say Democrats, like it is the Democratic party of today, and flat out a lie to say the left-wing disarmed Dr. Martin Luther King. Truth be told, it was Dr. King himself that disarmed Dr. King.  Is Dana this dumb? I don't think so, but more and more it sure looks like she's hoping the readers of this book are.