Rick Santorum's war on happiness


How exactly do liberals have fun? Surely, it must have something to do with human sacrifice, or mocking Jesus, or tipping over tombstones in Catholic cemeteries.

Rick Santorum, the Pennsylvania senator turned noun turned unannounced Presidential aspirant says that the "liberal" view of freedom is "not the kind of freedom our founders envisioned." Elaborating, he says "It is an entire culture that focus (sic) on immediate gratification and the pursuit of happiness and personal pleasure. And it is harming America."

The second sentence in the US Declaration of Indepence, reads "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Shortly after signing the document, John Hancock and John Adams possibly snorted coke off Betsy Ross's butt, then headed to the nearest titty bar. Or possibly not.

I'm actually happy to hear old Man on Dog talking like this. The further to the right mainstream Republicans like Santorum move, the more moderate us Democrats look. With 25 percent of Americans believing baby Jesus rode a pet dinosaur, and another 25 percent thinking Al Sharpton makes sense, there is a huge demographic of Americans who are amenable to logic, and can be persuaded that happiness is not a bad thing.

Santorum is right on some respects. The culture does support the pursuit of happiness. It also supports relieving lower back pain, removing stubborn stains from laundry, and providing comprehensive health insurance at a fair price. Fortunately, our laissez faire economic system drives our pursuits, not Barbra Streisand. If Santorum had spent more than five minutes in the green room thinking about these issues, he would realize that the Happinistas wear Brooks Brothers suits, drive SUVs, and vote Republican.

Please, don't tell him.
2.8.05 22:06


Katherine Harris says she's not as ghastly as she appears to be




Katherine Harris (R-Max Factor), whose Bush v. Gore election-stealing exploits catapulted her to the US House of Representatives, says newspaper photo editors are deliberately making her look like an aging trollop.
On Monday, on a conservative radio talk show, Harris, now a congresswoman from Longboat Key running for the U.S. Senate, hit back, blaming newspapers for the criticism and charging that some - without saying which - altered her photographs.

``I'm actually very sensitive about those things, and it's personally painful,'' Harris said when host Sean Hannity asked about her image problems from 2000.

``But they're outrageously false, No. 1, and No. 2, you know, whenever they made fun of my makeup, it was because the newspapers colorized my photograph,'' Harris said.

She didn't explain what she meant by ``colorized.''
I think I know. In this sense, "colorized" means photographing the grimacing death-mask which passes for a face and then using "color" ink to reproduce the image on newsprint.
4.8.05 11:46


Bob Novak also falls victim to colorization




CNN's creepy little man-troll Bob Novak says photo editors have been messin' with his picture, too:
Host Ed Henry: [Rep. Katherine] Harris is blaming unnamed newspapers for tarnishing her image by doctoring her makeup with Photoshop. ? that computer program. Bob Novak, have you been investigating this make-up story?

Novak: No, but I've had the same experience that she did. A lot of my trouble in the world is that they've doctored my make-up and colorized me in a lot of newspapers on my picture. So, I sympathize with her.

Henry: This is breaking news. I've haven't heard this.

James Carville: Breaking news. Who did it? What paper?

Novak: Well, I don't. I can't tell you.
h/t Carpetbagger
5.8.05 15:54


Bobo's big brain


David Brooks, always the master of searching out evidence to support his foregone conclusions, has jumped the shark. There is no place this "conservative" legend of the New York Times op-ed page can go from here but down. Today, he takes aside all those rudderless albeit brilliant 18-year-olds (you know, the one not getting their legs blown off in Iraq), and shares with them the secret to success. Two words: cultural geography.

It's a field that hardly exists, Bobo tells us, because multiculturalist university professors use their mind bending rays to prevent decent people from asking sensible questions:
This is the line of inquiry that is now impolite to pursue. The gospel of multiculturalism preaches that all groups and cultures are equally wonderful. There are a certain number of close-minded thugs, especially on university campuses, who accuse anybody who asks intelligent questions about groups and enduring traits of being racist or sexist. The economists and scientists tend to assume that material factors drive history - resources and brain chemistry - because that's what they can measure and count.

But none of this helps explain a crucial feature of our time: while global economies are converging, cultures are diverging, and the widening cultural differences are leading us into a period of conflict, inequality and segmentation.
Actually, multiculturalism teaches that all cultures serve a purpose. It also teaches that by understanding and appreciating other cultures, we can all hope to get along peacefully, rather than blowing up skyscrapers and invading each other's countries. But that's a fine point not worthy of Brooks's big ole brain.

Brooks then makes the leap from insipid to vapid with this observation:
If you look just around the United States you find amazing cultural segmentation. We in America have been "globalized" (meaning economically integrated) for centuries, and yet far from converging into some homogeneous culture, we are actually diverging into lifestyle segments. The music, news, magazine and television markets have all segmented, so there are fewer cultural unifiers like Life Magazine or Walter Cronkite.
There's a simple economic reason for America's cultural segmentation, David. It's called marketing. Advertisers prefer to spend their advertising budgets on people who are most likely to buy their products. That's why you see arthritis medication ads during the nightly news, which draws an older audience, and not on Dawson's Creek, which is watched primarily by 18-year-olds with really big brains.

I tried reading the rest of the article, but it made my head hurt. Sorry I posted the link.


LaShawn Barber's identity crisis

I can't believe she said this:
A non-white, third-world influx of illegal aliens is bad for America any way you package it. Unlike European immigrants who came to the U.S. to assimilate into society, Mexicans have little interest in adopting the culture or the language.
I'm thinking some bloggers should draw straws, and the loser has to tell LaShawn that she's black.



Native American sports team mascots

Andrew Cline at the American Specator takes the NCAA to task for "racial paternalism". The NCAA's offense? Banning 18 colleges and universities from using Native American nicknames.

Now this has always been a touchy subject for me. Not because I'm native American, unless one defines third-generation French Alsacian as Native American. And not touchy because I get off on the Tomahawk chop. Which I don't. I guess I've had mixed feelings about using Native American imagery since Marquette University dumped the kick-ass Warriors for the limp-noodley Golden Eagles.

So I asked a friend of mine, a fellow Marquette alum, journalist and Native American, to explain it all to my white brain. Here's what she wrote:
I find the opinions of non-Native Americans interesting when it comes to the sports mascot issue. If you could separate mascots from the behavior they generate from fans, then the author of the commentary might have a point. The sad truth is that too often Native American mascots are accompanied by ridiculous stereotypes of Native culture that is insulting, insensitive and offensive -- especially among the fans of professional teams.

It wasn't always this way. I grew up in Tomah, home of the Tomah Indians. There was a sense of pride in Native American heritage. There was no tomahawk chop or ridiculing of culture. If all teams truly had this regard, I don't think there would be nearly as much opposition.

At the heart of this need to characterize Native Americans as emblems of team spirit is to keep them in the American psyche as figures of the past. When you combine that with the fact that schools don't teach accurate Native American history in our educational system, and the fact that Native Americans are largely ignored by the mainstream media, it gives mainstream America the sense that Native people are relics and don't have much value beyond giving ball teams a nickname.

I'm not one of those Native Americans that are particularly hurt by the images. But some Native American children are hurt and ashamed over having their culture diminished through foolish behavior and overpriced merchandise (that doesn't go toward improving the lives of Native people).

These are things that the author of the commentary cannot possibly understand. I usually ignore comments from people that say: What's the big deal? Or: They're just being overly sensitive. Those folks can't possibly understand, and it's not my job to try to get them to step outside themselves and really explore what it might be like for those that are disenfranchised.
That's about right.
11.8.05 15:24


Bush voters say the darndest things


Some enterprising free thinkers have been collecting outrageous statements made in the name of all that is Biblical. Examples include:

"God created dinosaurs when he created man. But he kept them on one side of the earth while he kept Adam and Eve on the other side. Then he killed off all of the dinosaurs and hurled their bodies to the other side of the planet, tilting the planet on its axis. And that's why the earth revolves around the sun - the impact from God's dinosaurs tilted earth into its rotation."

"So, how come there are no "talking snakes" nowadays?" ... "Because you are not righteous enough to hear them talk."

"I know another preacher who, along with his church, prayed that the LORD would help a pot of noodles last through a social dinner, not only did they last, not only did several take home a container full of noodles, but the containers always stayed full. Finally, they had to throw them out, after thanking the LORD of course."

"Take a hard look at the Grand Canyon. Try to explain that through evolution." (My personal favorite)

"There have been triple blind studies and plants that hear about God grow a better crop"

"Excuse me, but doesn't God have to exist before you can not believe in Him?"

Update: Just found this gem posted on Publius' blog:

"If evolution is a natural progression over billions of years, why are there no creatures living on other planets, Mars, Venus, etc?"
12.8.05 00:31


McGuiness shake


From Heraldblog's "Now Why Didn't I Think of That?" desk.

h/t NOB
14.8.05 22:57


The GOP's harms race


Wonkette steps out of character long enough to tell us:
Grief can pull a person in any direction, and whatever "moral authority" it imbues, we can't claim that Sheehan has it and those mothers who still support the war don't. The Bush administration knows all about exploiting tragedy for its own causes, including re-election. Whatever arguments there are against the war in Iraq, let's not make "I have more despairing mothers on my side" one of them. The only way to win a grief contest is for more people to die.
I've been steering clear of the Sheehan story, too. Not that I don't feel for the woman, and admire her courage. I'd like to see Cindy Sheehan slap the silly smirk off of George Bush's face. But that's not going to happen. For me, the story is about middle aged parents second guessing the decisions of their 20-something children. Casey Sheehan wasn't drafted into the war. He wasn't abducted by Pentagon thugs and hustled off to Iraq. The only person who could ever speak for Casey Sheehan is Casey Sheehan, and now he's dead. Nothing more can be said.
15.8.05 14:30


 [next page]