Friday, March 9, 2012
The Contraception Controversy
I was hoping that I could leave this subject alone because honestly I find the whole thing stupid. It’s evolved into a “Bash Rush” event and has completely devolved to a point where no one is talking about the actual issue at hand. This whole kerfuffle is about one thing and one thing alone:
Choice.
When Rush made his “incendiary” comments about that poor, innocent 30 year-old Georgetown law student, the left saw it as an opportunity to change the tone of the argument. It went from an issue of religious freedom (an argument the right would probably win) to a page right out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Rule 13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. They saw Rush make his statement, they “froze” it in people’s memories by playing it repeatedly through news sites and new media, Obama personalized it by making some bullshit statement about how he “thought of his daughters” (how sweet, right?), and then it became a full on media blitz. You are either on Fluke’s side and care about women’s choice, or you are a flat-footed republican barbarian who “just doesn’t get it”.
The right started off with a good message- you can’t force a religious institution to cover something that goes against their beliefs. I completely agree with this and it’s a good strategy. However, this isn’t even really about religious freedom.
This mandate comes down to the PERSONAL CHOICE of an individual. Imagine that Catholic institutions are given a pass on this. If you are a woman that is looking for work and birth control coverage is of dire importance to you, DON’T TAKE A FUCKING JOB AT A CATHOLIC INSTITUTION. Simple as that. No one is forcing a woman to take that job. If you want free access to birth control, go find a government job or a job at one of millions of other places that don’t subscribe to Catholic doctrines.
Leftists don’t look at this issue as personal choice though, because they don’t believe in it. To them, it’s all about mandating that others help the people who won’t help themselves.
Choice.
When Rush made his “incendiary” comments about that poor, innocent 30 year-old Georgetown law student, the left saw it as an opportunity to change the tone of the argument. It went from an issue of religious freedom (an argument the right would probably win) to a page right out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Rule 13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. They saw Rush make his statement, they “froze” it in people’s memories by playing it repeatedly through news sites and new media, Obama personalized it by making some bullshit statement about how he “thought of his daughters” (how sweet, right?), and then it became a full on media blitz. You are either on Fluke’s side and care about women’s choice, or you are a flat-footed republican barbarian who “just doesn’t get it”.
The right started off with a good message- you can’t force a religious institution to cover something that goes against their beliefs. I completely agree with this and it’s a good strategy. However, this isn’t even really about religious freedom.
This mandate comes down to the PERSONAL CHOICE of an individual. Imagine that Catholic institutions are given a pass on this. If you are a woman that is looking for work and birth control coverage is of dire importance to you, DON’T TAKE A FUCKING JOB AT A CATHOLIC INSTITUTION. Simple as that. No one is forcing a woman to take that job. If you want free access to birth control, go find a government job or a job at one of millions of other places that don’t subscribe to Catholic doctrines.
Leftists don’t look at this issue as personal choice though, because they don’t believe in it. To them, it’s all about mandating that others help the people who won’t help themselves.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
3 Main Takeaways of the 1st Breitbart Video
I have to admit, when I first saw the videos released by Breitbart & Co. I was a bit confused. It seemed that all it did was reinforce what I already believed to be true and did little (if anything) to convince others to join the Conservative cause.
After doing some deeper research on Andrew Breitbart (aka finishing his book Righteous Indignation) I realized that there is much more to this story. This is most likely the tip of a much bigger iceberg. There are 3 main takeaways you should have from this video's release and the subsequent reaction.
First- You have to understand who Derrick Bell is. He is not a Martin Luther King, Jr civil rights activist. In fact, he's the direct opposite. Where King was a uniter, Bell was a divider. Bell, who took an "unpaid leave of absence" at Harvard Law didn't do so because he was standing up for equality. As Thomas Sowell, Standford professor and all-around smart guy put it, Bell doesn't just mean black as in skin color but "those who are really black, not those who think white and look black. And so what he is really saying is he wants ideological conformity in the people that are hired to fill this position." Furthermore, Bell's creation, "Critical Race Theory", is rooted in the idea the laws and policies are created to uphold white supremacy. At the very least, Bell's ideals are controversial and likely not the way the majority of American view our country.
Second- Our Commander in Chief, Barack Obama, is seen not only embracing this controversial figure but also encouraging the audience to "open their heart and open their minds" to him. This SHOULD be a red flag. The media incessantly covered the pastors of both Rick Santorum and Rick Perry- drawing conclusions that they were crazed evangelicals. You would think that a controversial person like Derrick Bell would at least drum up some basic investigation by a supposed "objective" media, right? Especially if the President was urging people to open their hearts to the guy...
Third- This is where Breitbart turns the tables on the media, and they completely miss the punchline. Perhaps the biggest reveal of this video is the additional footage of Charles Ogletree laughingly saying that "WE obviously hid this throughout the 2008 campaign". So this footage was purposefully hidden? If it's a harmless video, then why hide it? And who does he mean by "WE"? Is he referring to himself and the President? Was it the campaign staff? This is a story that deserves looking into, but the liberal media simply glides over it. Soledad O'Brien, who continues to be a pretentious bitch, is so blinded by her left leanings that she doesn't even see the story that's slapping her across the face (:50).
This story isn't JUST about who Obama "palled" around with. It's about the media's hypocrisy and "nothing to see here" attitude when it comes to covering their guys.
After doing some deeper research on Andrew Breitbart (aka finishing his book Righteous Indignation) I realized that there is much more to this story. This is most likely the tip of a much bigger iceberg. There are 3 main takeaways you should have from this video's release and the subsequent reaction.
First- You have to understand who Derrick Bell is. He is not a Martin Luther King, Jr civil rights activist. In fact, he's the direct opposite. Where King was a uniter, Bell was a divider. Bell, who took an "unpaid leave of absence" at Harvard Law didn't do so because he was standing up for equality. As Thomas Sowell, Standford professor and all-around smart guy put it, Bell doesn't just mean black as in skin color but "those who are really black, not those who think white and look black. And so what he is really saying is he wants ideological conformity in the people that are hired to fill this position." Furthermore, Bell's creation, "Critical Race Theory", is rooted in the idea the laws and policies are created to uphold white supremacy. At the very least, Bell's ideals are controversial and likely not the way the majority of American view our country.
Second- Our Commander in Chief, Barack Obama, is seen not only embracing this controversial figure but also encouraging the audience to "open their heart and open their minds" to him. This SHOULD be a red flag. The media incessantly covered the pastors of both Rick Santorum and Rick Perry- drawing conclusions that they were crazed evangelicals. You would think that a controversial person like Derrick Bell would at least drum up some basic investigation by a supposed "objective" media, right? Especially if the President was urging people to open their hearts to the guy...
Third- This is where Breitbart turns the tables on the media, and they completely miss the punchline. Perhaps the biggest reveal of this video is the additional footage of Charles Ogletree laughingly saying that "WE obviously hid this throughout the 2008 campaign". So this footage was purposefully hidden? If it's a harmless video, then why hide it? And who does he mean by "WE"? Is he referring to himself and the President? Was it the campaign staff? This is a story that deserves looking into, but the liberal media simply glides over it. Soledad O'Brien, who continues to be a pretentious bitch, is so blinded by her left leanings that she doesn't even see the story that's slapping her across the face (:50).
This story isn't JUST about who Obama "palled" around with. It's about the media's hypocrisy and "nothing to see here" attitude when it comes to covering their guys.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
