I'm beginning to think that I could just watch Fox "News" every morning and I would never have to worry again about having something to post here. This morning, the BHBB on "Fox and Fools" was interviewing Dr. Brian Weiss about his book, "Many Lives, Many Masters". It's a book about past lives and using past life "regression" to fix problems people have in their lives. One example he gave (and I'm not making this up) was if you had neck pain that it may be that you were hanged in a past life and by helping you "remember" that, you can cure the pain. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? This is what FOX considers news, some quack peddling nonsense? It's bad enough that they put their own slant on real news stories, including flat out lying about things. But this, really? I admit it's not as if Fox "News" had any credibility before anyway. If they ever did, though, this got rid of it for sure.
Sorry, folks, but you didn't have any past lives and you're not going to have any future ones. Just look at it from a strictly mathematical standpoint. There are MANY (we're talking literally billions) more people who are living today than lived in the past. Are there some people who have lived before and other people who are new souls? If that's the case, how is it that every person who goes to a quack like this Dr. Weiss is told that they had a past life? You would think once in a while they'd come across someone who didn't have any past lives. In fact, the difference between the amount of people living before and those living now would make it likely that most of the people they "treat" would NOT have had a past life, but that never seems to be the case. And, always, at least one of the individual's past lives was as somebody famous, again something the odds would be against. Why then, is this always the case? Oh, that's right, because the whole thing is BS.
Oh, and let me ask you this. If someone opens fire on a group of people killing some and wounding others, what would you call that? I ask this because right after the BHBB's ridiculous interview, she mentioned the stories (and, really, if there's ever a time where that is the appropriate word for news, it's when it's something on FOX) was going to be about how President Obama won't use the word terrorism in reference to the shooting of U.S. airmen in Germany. We've heard this before from them. Obama never uses the word terrorism (which isn't true) and of course, this means he is really on the side of the terrorists (at least, that's what FOX tries to imply). You know, I don't watch FOX "News" that much, so maybe I missed it when they covered the story on TV, but I did a search on their website using quite a few combinations of "Arizona" and "terrorism" or "terorrist". Based on the results I got, it doesn't seem that they referred to the shootings in Arizona as terrorism even though it was very similar to what happened in Germany. Hmmm, why would that be? Maybe this table will help :
Germany shootings Arizona shootings
Lone gunman Lone gunman
Attack on U.S. citizens in public Attack on U.S. citizens in public
Multiple deaths Multiple deaths
Shooter was not a U.S. citizen Shooter was a U.S. citizen
Shooter influenced by violent Shooter influenced by violent
rhetoric of Islamic extremists rhetoric of right wing politicians
given airtime on FOX
Gee, what are the differences that might be causing them to label one as a terrorist attack and not the other? As I said, I could be wrong. Maybe when the Arizona shootings happened, they reported it as a terrorist attack and they just don't refer to it as such on their website, right? Yeah....right.
FOX "News", the gift that keeps on giving.
Showing posts with label Fox News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fox News. Show all posts
Monday, March 7, 2011
Friday, June 4, 2010
Offensive speech
So this morning, I did something that I do occasionally even though I know it's just going to annoy me. While flipping through the channels on TV, I stopped on Fox "News". Steve Douchey (yes, I know that's not how it's spelled, but it should be) and the bubble-headed bleach blonde (tip of the cap to Don Henley) were talking to a curator of a museum in Oklahoma. Right now, the museum she works for is displaying paintings that show the Virgin Mary holding weapons. For instance, in one painting, she is holding what looks like a sub-machine gun. She isn't using the weapons or even pointing them at anyone, just holding them. Now I didn't find this particularly offensive, (I wasn't particularly impressed with the artwork, in my opinion, it was competent, but nothing special) but then again, I don't believe in the whole Virgin Mary story anyway, so that's not surprising. It also wasn't surprising that Fox actually considers this news or that the whole point of having this woman on was to give her grief (as opposed to taking a "Fair and Balanced" look at the situation)and get Fox viewers riled up about this awful thing that's going on, even though no one's forcing any of them to go to Oklahoma and look at this stuff.
But the point of this post isn't to point out what everyone knows, which is that Fox "News" is not a news organization. I just want to comment on something the BBB said. I don't remember the exact quote, but I think this is close enough to it to make the point, "I understand the whole free speech thing, but, still, a lot of people would probably find this offensive". The second half of that statement makes it clear that the first half of it isn't true. The whole point of freedom of speech is to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by its' very nature, doesn't need protecting. If I say something like, "Puppies and kittens are cute", I don't have to worry too much about upsetting people. But if I say something like, "I think if Christ did exist, he was just a guy with some good ideas, that's it, he certainly wasn't the son of God", there are quite a few people who would be ticked off. Does that mean I shouldn't have the right to say that ? Before you answer, think about this, would you want to live in Iran ? In that country, religion IS the law and woe on anyone who would dare to say anything against it. Some of the right wing nuts who think Obama's a nazi have drawn pictures of him with a Hitler mustache and Nazi uniform and displayed them at rallies. I personally find this offensive (and, frankly, I think most Jews or pretty much anybody who knows anything about history should). To compare anything Obama has done, no matter how much it has ticked you off, to what Hitler did is incredibly offensive and the people who do it just display how ignorant of history they are (and in general). Still, I would never say they weren't allowed to do it. Of course, during the Dubya administration (the Dark Years), any piece of artwork that made such an offensive implication about Dubya would have sparked outrage among these same people.
Bottom line, freedom of speech is not there to protect speech everybody likes. It's there to protect speech many people won't like, maybe even you. And like the right wingers who said that criticizing Dubya was disloyal and that we should always support our president no matter what who are now carrying those Obama is Hitler signs, the speech you find offensive today might be the kind of thing you want to say tomorrow. It's very easy for the tables to be turned. If you really love this country, like so many on the right claim to (and imply that those on the left don't), then you should support the First Amendment (and the rest of the Constitution) and just don't listen to, watch, etc. anything you don't like. Otherwise, one day you may find that you're the one being silenced.
But the point of this post isn't to point out what everyone knows, which is that Fox "News" is not a news organization. I just want to comment on something the BBB said. I don't remember the exact quote, but I think this is close enough to it to make the point, "I understand the whole free speech thing, but, still, a lot of people would probably find this offensive". The second half of that statement makes it clear that the first half of it isn't true. The whole point of freedom of speech is to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by its' very nature, doesn't need protecting. If I say something like, "Puppies and kittens are cute", I don't have to worry too much about upsetting people. But if I say something like, "I think if Christ did exist, he was just a guy with some good ideas, that's it, he certainly wasn't the son of God", there are quite a few people who would be ticked off. Does that mean I shouldn't have the right to say that ? Before you answer, think about this, would you want to live in Iran ? In that country, religion IS the law and woe on anyone who would dare to say anything against it. Some of the right wing nuts who think Obama's a nazi have drawn pictures of him with a Hitler mustache and Nazi uniform and displayed them at rallies. I personally find this offensive (and, frankly, I think most Jews or pretty much anybody who knows anything about history should). To compare anything Obama has done, no matter how much it has ticked you off, to what Hitler did is incredibly offensive and the people who do it just display how ignorant of history they are (and in general). Still, I would never say they weren't allowed to do it. Of course, during the Dubya administration (the Dark Years), any piece of artwork that made such an offensive implication about Dubya would have sparked outrage among these same people.
Bottom line, freedom of speech is not there to protect speech everybody likes. It's there to protect speech many people won't like, maybe even you. And like the right wingers who said that criticizing Dubya was disloyal and that we should always support our president no matter what who are now carrying those Obama is Hitler signs, the speech you find offensive today might be the kind of thing you want to say tomorrow. It's very easy for the tables to be turned. If you really love this country, like so many on the right claim to (and imply that those on the left don't), then you should support the First Amendment (and the rest of the Constitution) and just don't listen to, watch, etc. anything you don't like. Otherwise, one day you may find that you're the one being silenced.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
"Sorry I got caught" Syndrome
Before I get to the main topic of this post, I just want to give a shout out to Fox News for once again proving that, despite their feigned offense at the suggestion, they are nothing but a mouthpiece for the right. They hired a new political commentator. Seeing as how they call themselves "Fair and Balanced", they probably hired a Liberal to provide some balance to all of the Conservative commentators they have now, right ? Wrong ! They hired Sarah "I couldn't come up with the name of one magazine or newspaper I've ever read until months after I was asked the question" Palin. Of course, I'm sure that she was hired because she is a well-read (HA!), well-informed individual, supremely qualified to comment on the issues of the day on national TV, and not just because she's a GILF who leans so far to the right she makes Newt Gingrich look liberal. Seriously, I could have made the whole post about this , but both Palin and Fox News constantly provide fodder for commentary, so I'm sure I'll have a chance to get back to them.
No, today, we'll be talking about sports. Specifically, we'll be talking about our tendency to forgive (and, even worse, forget) anything our star athletes do, no matter what it is. If, by some chance, you haven't heard by now, I have big news for you : Mark McGwire admits he used steroids ! I'm sorry, I probably should have given you some warning. I know this news is almost as shocking as the news about Sarah Palin. Of course, even now, he isn't being completely honest. He claims that he took them for "health reasons". I can believe that, if by that he was referring to the healthy amount of money he got from playing baseball and any endorsement deals he got. He also claimed that he was coming clean now because of his hiring as the Cardinals hitting coach, but that happened in October, so why would he wait until now ? I think it's more likely that he's admitting it now because last week the Baseball Hall of Fame voted in their newest members and, once again, McGwire didn't come anywhere close to getting the necessary votes. I think he's hoping that if he admits what he did (even if it's not a complete admission) and apologizes that he'll get voted in.
He has good reason to think so. Athletes constantly commit crimes or do immoral things and get forgiven. Some get caught right away, put out an "apology" written by their agent and from that point on, when asked about it, say "I know I did something wrong, I apologized, now I just want to move on." and they're allowed to do so ! How many times have you been watching a sporting event and heard the announcer make a remark about a certain athlete's "recent troubles", never specifying what those "troubles" are, (e.g. getting caught with drugs or smacking his girlfriend around) and making this remark in a way that seems to suggest that these "troubles" HAPPENED to this athlete instead of the athlete being the cause of their own troubles. Sometimes, athletes don't get caught right away. They deny what they did over and over again until someone comes up with incontrovertible evidence or circumstances are such that admitting what they did has become a better option then continuing to lie (e.g. when they want to get into their particular sport's Hall of Fame).
Look at Pete Rose. Not only did he gamble on baseball, but he gambled on his own team. For this, as the rules state he should have been, he was banned from baseball. For years, he denied any wrongdoing, constantly badmouthing Bart Giamatti, Fay Vincent, basically anyone involved with his being banned and anyone who dared suggest he might be engaging in less then total honesty about the matter. Then it started to sink in that nobody was buying it, so he admitted to betting on baseball, but not his own team. Which didn't do the trick, so it finally got through his thick skull that he'd have to be totally honest, so he admitted to betting on his own team. And despite what he had done, despite all the lying and all the trashing of those who said that he was lying, there are actually people out there who think that now that he's admitted what he did, he should be re-instated.
Look at Ray Lewis. Whether or not you believe he actually participated in the fight that led to the death of two men, the fact is he DID know about it and DID try to avoid helping police bring the killers to justice. And yet, Ravens fans still cheer for him and wear his jersey and sports announcers and pundits still sing his praises. I wonder if they would be doing that if it was one of their family members that had been killed that night ?
And , finally, look at Michael Vick. This one really hits close to home for me. I was an Eagles fan for almost 30 years until they signed Vick. Of course, after 30 years of being a fan, it was hard to stop being one, but any lingering doubts I had about my decision were erased when his teammates unanimously voted for him for the Ed Block Courage Award, an award usually given to a player who overcomes an injury or an off-field problem not of their own making. What was the reasoning there ? He tortured and killed dogs , served less then two years in jail, then went back to a job that provides fame and fortune, how courageous ! Of course, as usual, with this "forgive and forget" mentality that athletes get the benefit of, you hear people say "He did his time, he's apologized, everybody deserves a second chance." For those people, let me remind you of what he did. He trained dogs to fight each other, to basically chew each other to pieces. Dogs that didn't pass their "test" fights or started to have a decline in their "performance" were killed. Specifically they were shot, drowned, electrocuted, hanged, even held by their hind legs and slammed against the ground or a wall. This sick, sadistic behavior is what he engaged in, what you're willing to forgive him for. Apparently, you don't think that the kind of animal cruelty that when seen in children is an indicator that you may have a potential serial killer on your hands is any reason to stop this man from making millions of dollars and providing an example to kids that no matter what they do, they can get away with it and even thrive afterwards if they just say they're sorry.
Obviously, what McGwire did doesn't rise (or I guess I should really say, sink) to the level of what Vick did, but it's the mentality that allows people like him to be forgiven for what they've done because of the talents they have that leads to athletes being forgiven for worse things. Some people DON'T deserve a second chance and saying "I'm sorry" doesn't always make things right.
No, today, we'll be talking about sports. Specifically, we'll be talking about our tendency to forgive (and, even worse, forget) anything our star athletes do, no matter what it is. If, by some chance, you haven't heard by now, I have big news for you : Mark McGwire admits he used steroids ! I'm sorry, I probably should have given you some warning. I know this news is almost as shocking as the news about Sarah Palin. Of course, even now, he isn't being completely honest. He claims that he took them for "health reasons". I can believe that, if by that he was referring to the healthy amount of money he got from playing baseball and any endorsement deals he got. He also claimed that he was coming clean now because of his hiring as the Cardinals hitting coach, but that happened in October, so why would he wait until now ? I think it's more likely that he's admitting it now because last week the Baseball Hall of Fame voted in their newest members and, once again, McGwire didn't come anywhere close to getting the necessary votes. I think he's hoping that if he admits what he did (even if it's not a complete admission) and apologizes that he'll get voted in.
He has good reason to think so. Athletes constantly commit crimes or do immoral things and get forgiven. Some get caught right away, put out an "apology" written by their agent and from that point on, when asked about it, say "I know I did something wrong, I apologized, now I just want to move on." and they're allowed to do so ! How many times have you been watching a sporting event and heard the announcer make a remark about a certain athlete's "recent troubles", never specifying what those "troubles" are, (e.g. getting caught with drugs or smacking his girlfriend around) and making this remark in a way that seems to suggest that these "troubles" HAPPENED to this athlete instead of the athlete being the cause of their own troubles. Sometimes, athletes don't get caught right away. They deny what they did over and over again until someone comes up with incontrovertible evidence or circumstances are such that admitting what they did has become a better option then continuing to lie (e.g. when they want to get into their particular sport's Hall of Fame).
Look at Pete Rose. Not only did he gamble on baseball, but he gambled on his own team. For this, as the rules state he should have been, he was banned from baseball. For years, he denied any wrongdoing, constantly badmouthing Bart Giamatti, Fay Vincent, basically anyone involved with his being banned and anyone who dared suggest he might be engaging in less then total honesty about the matter. Then it started to sink in that nobody was buying it, so he admitted to betting on baseball, but not his own team. Which didn't do the trick, so it finally got through his thick skull that he'd have to be totally honest, so he admitted to betting on his own team. And despite what he had done, despite all the lying and all the trashing of those who said that he was lying, there are actually people out there who think that now that he's admitted what he did, he should be re-instated.
Look at Ray Lewis. Whether or not you believe he actually participated in the fight that led to the death of two men, the fact is he DID know about it and DID try to avoid helping police bring the killers to justice. And yet, Ravens fans still cheer for him and wear his jersey and sports announcers and pundits still sing his praises. I wonder if they would be doing that if it was one of their family members that had been killed that night ?
And , finally, look at Michael Vick. This one really hits close to home for me. I was an Eagles fan for almost 30 years until they signed Vick. Of course, after 30 years of being a fan, it was hard to stop being one, but any lingering doubts I had about my decision were erased when his teammates unanimously voted for him for the Ed Block Courage Award, an award usually given to a player who overcomes an injury or an off-field problem not of their own making. What was the reasoning there ? He tortured and killed dogs , served less then two years in jail, then went back to a job that provides fame and fortune, how courageous ! Of course, as usual, with this "forgive and forget" mentality that athletes get the benefit of, you hear people say "He did his time, he's apologized, everybody deserves a second chance." For those people, let me remind you of what he did. He trained dogs to fight each other, to basically chew each other to pieces. Dogs that didn't pass their "test" fights or started to have a decline in their "performance" were killed. Specifically they were shot, drowned, electrocuted, hanged, even held by their hind legs and slammed against the ground or a wall. This sick, sadistic behavior is what he engaged in, what you're willing to forgive him for. Apparently, you don't think that the kind of animal cruelty that when seen in children is an indicator that you may have a potential serial killer on your hands is any reason to stop this man from making millions of dollars and providing an example to kids that no matter what they do, they can get away with it and even thrive afterwards if they just say they're sorry.
Obviously, what McGwire did doesn't rise (or I guess I should really say, sink) to the level of what Vick did, but it's the mentality that allows people like him to be forgiven for what they've done because of the talents they have that leads to athletes being forgiven for worse things. Some people DON'T deserve a second chance and saying "I'm sorry" doesn't always make things right.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)