If the biggest issue you have to worry about is a Chicken Sandwich, then you aren’t oppressed.
Secondly the idea that if you don’t support Gay Marriage makes you “anti-gay” is nonsense. Under that definition the entire country and world was Anti-gay from almost the start of recorded history till a 4-3 supreme court ruling in Massachusetts.
Thirdly when Gay people are slaughtered in Islamic countries for their simple existence might I suggest that you have your priorities mixed up.
Fourthly as Gay marriage has lost at the ballot box in even California and Maine (why do you think advocates have worked so hard to block a vote in Massachusetts) you apparently think the entire country is by your definition “anti-gay bigots”. The only exception being the media.
The only point I’ll give you is this. the Gawker guy is right about one thing, the Wendy’s Spicy Chicken Sandwich is THE best chicken sandwich out there, but Chick-fil-A is pretty good (I’ve only had one during my Atlanta Trip last year).
Get a life, if you don’t want to eat at Chick-fil-A, eat somewhere else.
Oh and there are a lot more Christians than non-Christians in the country. If you choose to boycott a Christian company for supporting Christian positions, I suspect quite a few companies that support your view can be targeted in reverse with a whole lot more fervor.
Update: Speaking of things the Gay Right’s community might focus on instead:
The new imam at the Ground Zero mosque and cultural center believes people who are gay were probably abused as children and that people who leave Islam and preach a new religion should be jailed.
Abdallah Adhami’s remarks on homosexuals, religious freedom and other topics have brought renewed criticism of the proposed community center and mosque near the World Trade Center site, which purports to be an inclusive organization.
Adhami, in a lecture on the Web site of his nonprofit, Sakeenah, says being gay is a “painful trial” caused by past trauma.
I’m sure we will see the Gay Left go after this with the same furor that they go after Chick-fil-A.
A person my age or older would be familiar with the term “Shotgun Wedding”. The idea being that a man who got a girl pregnant would be forced by the father of the girl, Shotgun in hand to the altar for the wedding. That line of thinking is in keeping with the idea Stacy McCain advanced about the the economics of love. Roxeanne DeLuca in comments also advanced this very Judeao-Christian idea:
These days, men think there’s just women you sleep with, that’s it. And pardon me if I think that, as a WOMAN, I should have the grounds to say, “If this isn’t emotional for you, if you could do this with any woman, or any woman with the right equipment and the right attitude, then I don’t want it from you.”
As it is, though, we’re expected to act like prostitutes, without the benefits and without the emotional reserve. When sexually loose women are “nice girls”, or tell you that they are, men WILL expect ALL nice women to be sexually loose.
The 60’s revolution ended this bigtime and some are still paying the price but there is one thing about this way of thinking that needs to be pointed out.
The entire idea of the shotgun wedding or the threat of the shotgun wedding is to protect the women and restrain the man. The idea being the man might think twice before trying to be a player if he know that it means he will have to follow through.
In this age of contraception and abortion those restraints are gone and the feminists of the left cheer this abandonment of the traditional Judeao-Christian meme as a triumph for women no matter the result.
There is however another side of the coin that the feminist left isn’t too loud in condemning.
Afshan Azad, 21, who played Padma Patil, a classmate of the teenage wizard, in the blockbuster Hollywood films based on JK Rowling’s children’s books, feared for her life during the three-hour ordeal, Manchester Crown Court heard.
She was punched, dragged around by her hair and strangled by her brother Ashraf Azad, 28, who threatened to kill her after he caught her talking on the phone to her Hindu boyfriend on May 21 last year, the court was told.
During the row at the family home in Longsight, Manchester, which also involved her mother and father, she was branded a ”slag” and a ”prostitute” and told: ”Marry a Muslim or you die!”
Note the cultural difference here. The threats are not against the man, they are against the woman. The threat of violence is not against the man for the advances, it is against the woman. Either way the Judge hearing the case decided to make a statement about violence against women:
Judge Thomas added: ”This is a sentence that is designed to punish you for what you did and also to send out a clear message to others that domestic violence involving circumstances such as have arisen here cannot be tolerated.”
And so he sentenced the guy to….for six months after he pleaded guilty to the assault.
This is attempted murder, and he’s only getting six months? Azad’s case is well known throughout the world due to her celebrity status, however, this is occurring to young Muslim girls throughout the world who are deemed too “Westernized” or a betrayer to Islam.
Some on the right have highlighted this kind of thing, the left…not so much. Why the difference in reaction to the Judeao-Christian cultural norm and not the Islamic one? Why is one a sign of repressive patriarchy and the other just a cultural difference and any objection Islamaphobia?
It’s a good question and I’d love to hear the answer.
So as a very Catholic anti-abortion guy where is my post full of outrage? There isn’t one.
To me this is no different from the thousands of abortions that are done every day. To me, the outrage isn’t that this doctor is out there, the outrage is that hundreds of others are killing children every day and are considered pillars of the community as Roxeanne said:
When Ruth Bader Ginsburg writes that partial-birth abortion (performed by delivering the baby in the breech position, stabbing it in the head with scissors with the neck lodged in the cervix, suctioning its brains out, and then delivering the corpse that had been alive moments earlier) is a constitutional right, she sanctions the murder of babies who have already been born – because those babies are no more human, no more special, than the ones who are fair targets.emphasis mine
It brings to mind a scene from the Great Escape:
Ramsey: I have to point out one thing to you, Roger. No matter how unsatisfactory this camp may be, the high command have left us in the hands of the Luftwaffe, not the Gestapo and the SS.
Bartlett: Look, sir, you talk about the high command of the Luftwaffe, then the SS and the Gestapo. To me they’re the same. We’re fighting the bloody lot. There’s only one way to put it, sir. They are the common enemies of everyone who believes in freedom.
To me there is no difference between this guy and the folks in Worcester who do Abortion legally with support from the government and our friends on the left. It’s important to prosecute this man to the fullest extent of the law but as Bob Belvedere says:
For the past one hundred years there has been a stealth revolution occurring in America and one of the fallouts of this silent and insidious upheaval has been the deaths of millions of babies.
Until we stop that revolution or help our friends on the left understand what they are doing it will not stop.
Abortion is the third pillar of the three great American evils that the democratic party has supported. The first was Slavery, the second was Jim Crow and the third is Abortion (Ironically all three target blacks and/or minorities). The day will come when people shake their heads wondering what folks were thinking for abortion in the same way they do on the others.
“My mom left me at home when I was 14 with a credit card and a box of condoms and the keys to the car and said, ‘Don’t get pregnant and don’t drink and drive'” she explained. “I had to be responsible for myself.”
Think about that for a moment. Here is your 14-year-old daughter and your parenting consists of negative rules that are in effect positive permissions as follows:
- Spend what you want
- Have sex with whatever guy you want
- Drive where you want to go
- Drink what you want
This is what we call in the Italian Catholic world the “Parenting is such a drag and I don’t want to do it.” method.
I’m sure this young lady does well financially but I’ve got to tell you I really would be mortified if either of my sons brought this young lady home. It’s certainly possible that she might rise above that nonsense but I think I’d be very worried about her raising my grandchildren.
We are not rich, my 17 year old son doesn’t have his permit yet (as his grades don’t yet warrant it but this report card might change that) My 18 year old son was given a copy of my credit card and writes me a check each month for what he spends. My boys have the combination of the very Catholic influences of my now 86 year old mother (who retired when they were 1 and 3 perfect timing for me) and my three basic rules that I’ve been drilling them with since before they were teens:
- No Booze
- No Drugs
- No Sex
Whenever I would leave the house I would say: “What are the rules?” I’ve asked them this question in front of their friends. They know these rules. And they choose and keep their friends accordingly. Kids coming into this house KNOW that if I find drugs with them they are out and the cops are called.
Answer me this: I don’t know if they will ever make anything near what that young lady makes and there is no guarantee that they will turn out in better shape in the long run that this woman, but tell me. Which ones do you want parenting your grandchildren?
If you are going to be a parent BE A PARENT, raise your children and take charge.
You will find it the most rewarding thing you do.
The myth that “you can’t stop your kids from doing X” is just that, a myth. It’s an excuse to not parent. Where would the Jets be this week if they bought the “You can’t stop Brady” stuff? Those Judeo-Christian values and rules were rejected by the 60’s generation had the expected result.
In only two generations the social ills that had been dodged to a great extent are now common.
All of this has happened in my lifetime. If you are 60 or above you have seen this change in front of you. Can you honestly say this cultural change was worth it?
In the long run the right thing is usually the smart thing. If you don’t want to do something because it is “right” according to people you don’t like, then do it because it is smart.
There is a lot of talk about how the 60’s was the summer of love and all the great stuff that came from it. Virginia Ironside had a different memory:
To be honest, I mainly remember the 60s as an endless round of miserable promiscuity, a time when often it seemed easier and, believe it or not, more polite, to sleep with a man than to chuck him out of your flat. I recall a complete stranger once slipping into bed beside me when I was staying in an all-male household in Oxford, and feeling so baffled about what the right thing was to do that I let him have sex with me; I remember being got drunk by a grossly fat tabloid newspaper journalist and taken back to a flat belonging to a friend of his to which he had a key, being subjected to what would now be described as rape, and still thinking it was my fault for accepting so much wine. I remember going out to dinner with a young lawyer who inveigled me back to his flat saying he’d got to pick something up before he could take me home, and then suggested we have sex. ‘Oh no,’ I said feebly. ‘I’m too tired.’ ‘Oh, go on,’ he replied. ‘It’ll only take a couple of minutes.’ So I did.
You mean to say that all of that bit about fornication in Christianity and waiting till marriage although religious might have a non religious benefit? Who woulda thunk it. And who would have ever thought that if you give men, who naturally want sex, particular young men no reason for restraint they will show none. Her conclusion:
After a decade of sleeping around pretty indiscriminately, girls of the 60s eventually became fairly jaded about sex. It took me years to discover that continual sex with different partners is, with very few exceptions, joyless, uncomfortable and humiliating, and it’s only now I’m older that I’ve discovered that one of the ingredients of a good sex life is, at the very least, a grain of affection between the two partners involved.
In the rush to reject traditional Christianity a lot of people did a lot of damage to themselves. My advice, find a nice young man who goes to Church and warn your daughters of making it too easy. People tend to rise to the level of expectations that you set for them so let’s make the exceptions high.
There are some commercials that just rub you the wrong way, (I hate the e-trade baby commercials) but I never get sick of this one:
Why, because it is all about a guy who wants something, wants it bad and what does he do? Does he max out his credit? Does he beg for it as a gift? Nope, he works and works at job after job, most of which are not enjoyable, and keeps his eye on the prize. And when he can afford the car he wants, only then does he get it.
This simply screams Tea Party values, hard work, perseverance, spending responsibility. In fact I would dare to say it screams American Values.
And look at the license plate on the two cars he buys. It says “The fly over state”. That says Red State all over it. How fitting.
I seem to recall a time when people who were considered “liberal” absolutely rushed to buy banned books and music to support artists repressed by uptight adults who didn’t get it.
Who ever thought that would be Canada:
The Dire Straits song “Money for Nothing” was ruled by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council to be “extremely offensive” and thus inappropriate for airing because it uses an anti-gay slur
No word on if the Canadians have banned Mel Brooks Blazing Saddles for this scene
I remember this video well for several reasons: The computer animation was not common in videos of the time, the song itself is pretty good and having known a lot of blue-collar guys they EXACTLY thought that about rock stars figuring they got rich the easy way.
Most bands will tell you that with rare exceptions it takes a lot of practice and years of work in cheap clubs to get to the point where you might have one hit, or one video. It’s not the type of heavy lifting that a laborer does but it is work (the easiest job is one somebody else is doing). There are rewards if you hit it big but most bands don’t.
Exit question is this: Has the Canadian Broadcast Standards council banned all rap music or comedy routines that includes a word that rhymes with “trigger”? If not why?
Anyway a count of the number of downloads of Money for Nothing yesterday would be quite interesting.
One of Rush Limbaugh’s favorite lines about the media and the democrats is they will tell you who they fear by their reactions.
One of the reason’s why the media has no problem “calling out” the Tea Party without evidence and why they have no problem going after the Catholic Church is not only do they disagree with their positions, but they understand and no they actually have no physical reason to fear them.
The shooting in which a Democrat was seriously wounded in Arizona has appalled the American Left, which denounces the “poisoned rhetoric” of the ultraconservatives…
He continues illustrating the comparative nonsense within the paper itself and their willingness to post blames, Yet not two weeks after the attack in Alexandra against Coptic Christians that was international news (prompting a rare positive reaction) we have this story out of Egypt:
An off-duty policeman has opened fire on a train in Egypt, killing a Christian man, but it is unclear whether the attack was sectarian.
At least another five people were reported to have been injured in the shooting on a train between Assiut and Cairo.
Officials said at least four of those hurt were Coptic Christians.
That’s just the fact but note how the story ends:
The BBC’s Jon Leyne reports from Cairo that it is difficult to see how the gunmen would have known he could target Christians by boarding the train.
Here you have the media making it a point to say it’s hard to see a direct religious connection the lack of evidence to make a connection to radical Islam vs the Coptic.
Although he approves of that last statement No Paesran’s head spins:
It is unclear whether the attack was sectarian! We learn that “Officials said at least four of those hurt [there were five wounded altogether] were Coptic Christians” and we learn that “Witnesses said hundreds of Christians later clashed with police outside the hospital where the wounded were taken” and we are reminded that “Tensions between Muslims and Christians in Egypt have been high following a bomb attack on a Coptic church in Alexandria at the new year that killed 23 people.” But! It is unclear whether the attack was sectarian!
All of this speaks volumes. I think it’s not just bias, I think it is the knowledge that if the BBC suggests islamic violence they may have to deal with repercussions personally.
Restraint is easy when your skin is at stake.