Dealing with delusional Phil Robertson supporters

With the A&E Duck Dynasty fiasco going on right now, I am seeing a lot of misinformation flying around from conservatives. In most instances, people are simply not telling the truth. Let me tackle most of these asinine claims in list form.

Claim #1. He couldn't speak his mind/express himself.

Fact: The article is in GQ Magazine. His words have not been censored. Everything GQ published in the article is from Phil. His 1st Amendment rights have not been limited.

That's how we got into this mess. He expressed himself. His rights are intact.

What happened was, his words had consequences. You know what consequences are, right? When you say something that is offensive and ignorant, you're going to catch hell for it. You learn not to let your mouth run faster than you can think. You learn that there are some things you just should not say.

It isn't a crime to turn off your verbal filter, but it can end your career. In this world, we hold people accountable, or at least we try to.

Claim #2: "We never judge" blah blah blah from the article in question. "I would never treat anyone with disrespect."

This is not what A&E suspended him for. His comments about blacks, anal sex, vaginas, bestiality, etc reflected poorly on A&E's reputation. Being gay isn't logical? That's judgment. Making anal sex the focal point of your perspective on gays? That's judgment.

All of his views on blacks and homosexuals are disrespectful. He doesn't love all of humanity. That's simply not supported by the rest of what he said.

Claim #3: Liberal hypocrisy/Political Correctness hypocrisy

This claim surmises that Christians are unfairly targeted and that, had this been a Muslim or a liberal, nothing would have happened.

Fact: This couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, Islamic Extremists hold the same beliefs as Phil on homosexuality, so in essence, by condemning his ideals, we also condemn anyone else who thinks of gays as he does. On top of that, the Dixie Chicks were met with extreme scrutiny for expressing themselves and I didn't hear much from the Right Wing freedom fighters then. Lots of liberals have been given the axe.

John Edwards. Anthony Weiner. Alec Baldwin. Keith Olbermann. Shall I continue listing people?

Claim #4: Miley Cyrus got away with groping herself on national television and poor Phil gets the axe.

Did Miley get away with her performance? I'm fairly certain she was made a mockery of on several networks and online. I saw the joke photos of Will Smith and his family. I saw the outrage on Twitter. I saw the complaints that this aired on television. I saw the SNL skits. I saw the comparisons to her former Disney persona.

Miley Cyrus did not get away with groping herself. She was immediately ridiculed, condemned, and chastised. She was held accountable and lost several fans as a result.

Duck Dynasty fans, I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about. You are defending the indefensible words of religious-based hatred of an entire group of people in the process.

ABC World News Now looks to wrong audience on question about ACA signup problems

I was just checking Facebook before calling it a night and I came across a World News Now post in my feed that hit me as surprisingly out of place. The post asks Facebook users to let them know if you're someone who has used the Obamacare web site to sign up for health insurance. I find this odd, considering that people who don't have or can't afford health insurance probably don't use Facebook.

Let's think about that. If you are a struggling American, are you awake at 2am on a Sunday reading Facebook? Do you even have a Facebook account?

This makes me wonder if ABC is looking to get the answer they want by asking the question in a place where they know responses will be largely made by people who don't need to sign up.

I mean, if you want to make it look like rednecks are ignorant, wouldn't you go to a Toby Keith concert and ask them questions about classical music? You'd get the result you wanted, but it wouldn't be a valid sample.

If the TSA was targeted at LAX...

I do not write at this blog very often anymore, but given the state of this country and the rampant spread of paranoia, stupidity, and flagrance, I feel compelled to express myself here.

The news is saying that an eyewitness of the shooting at LAX which took place this morning in Terminal 3 claimed the armed attacker asked if he was TSA. If this is true, then it implies the TSA was the shooter's target. I admit speculation at this point is presumptive and dangerous, so without the facts, this post is merely theoretical in nature.

Given the rise of sites like InfoWars and the paranoia present in Right Wing politics, angst toward the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA has skyrocketed. From beliefs that the DHS is arming itself with ammo to speculation that TSA agents will now be armed, paranoia originating at sites like InfoWars has created an unhealthy environment that can only lead to more dangerous outcomes.

The paranoia has evolved into an overt hatred of the government and underneath that umbrella is where  the DHS and TSA both reside. It is no secret that people who are paranoid about the government post day in and day out about how much they do not trust the DHS or the TSA. To these people, it is a war. They are soldiers in a fight against some imaginary New World Order fantasy where their enemies use mind control devices (as in the case of the Navy Yard shooter) and subjugation is their perceived outcome should they choose not to resist.

So in my local environment, I have to deal with extreme Right Wingers and NWO conspiracy theorists. I have to put up with InfoWars fans. I have to put up with lots of crazy nonsense. The thing is, I do not know which one of these people will snap. Nothing tells me which of them is truly insane and which is just paranoid. I have to view all of them as potential Navy Yard shooters as a result.

If the angst toward the DHS and TSA is reaching a tipping point, then as InfoWars fans the flames of paranoia, we should also see a rise in activity amongst its followers.

How many of them are going to act on their impulses?

Who, then, do we hold responsible for fanning the flames?

I understand the need to vocalize dissent, demand transparency, and advocate free speech, but the responsibility is on these crazy sites and political officials to rein in the dangerous verbage. They are inspiring a whole group of people to snap.

Should it be revealed that our latest shooter was one of these crazies, then I think it is time for Americans to wake up to the reality that the enemy is not the TSA or the DHS, but those who are willing to kill based on some conspiracy theory.

A conspiracy theorist would default to the ever popular "false flag" bullshit in response to this shooting. The "false flag" defense is one of convenience and proves to be a self serving blind eye to the insanity they have endorsed. Crying "false flag" absolves them of guilt when I feel we should come down hard on them.

Do not let your local nutjob get away with running his mouth this time. The Navy Yard shooting was a wake up call. We have a mental health problem in this country and these same nutjobs are armed. Make no mistake. If you don't side with them, they are perfectly fine with pointing a gun at you.

Denying they are crazy is denying that we have a mental health problem in this country. Do we have a problem or not? Okay, then. Deal with it. Don't say these folks aren't nuts.

David M. Draiman politicizes Rolling Stone cover

One of the problems with this country is that everything, and I mean EVERYTHING becomes politicized. Whether it is the Zimmerman trial, Climate Change, or Boston bombing suspects, someone somewhere has to get their political jabs in. I specifically hate it when someone miscategorizes something as liberal when it is not.

The Zimmerman verdict was split down political lines. The fucking weather is disputed at the level of political affiliation, not science. In the case of today's situation, Rolling Stone putting Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on their cover, Disturbed band member David Draiman tied politics to an apolitical situation.

Quote from Draiman's rant with the questionable content in bold:

YOU…DARE…TO…PUT…THE…IMAGE…OF…THE…BOSTON…BOMBER…ON…THE…FUCKING…COVER…OF…YOUR…MAGAZINE!!!!????
ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR ULTRA-LIBERAL, SYMPATHETIC TO A FAULT, FUCKING MINDS???

Since when is it specifically ultra-liberal to glorify a terrorist?

It isn't. It hasn't.

Let's make something very clear here. Americans, liberals included, condemned the actions of the Boston bombing suspects. Let's also be clear that liberals are not happy that Rolling Stone has chosen to put Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover.

Why is it, then, that David Draiman attributed liberalism to Rolling Stone's poor decision?

Time and time again, I have to put up with having my views as a liberal insulted here in Louisiana. I am despised for no other reason than being a liberal. I am ridiculed on a regular basis by flagrant assholes of the conservative ilk in the city in which I live. I am also attacked by random conservatives on the internet.

In a back and forth Twitter dispute with Scott Wherle, Wherle correctly identified the misplaced attribution of blame on liberals and Draiman, in a state of ignorance, supplied a retort that included justification of his comments because he himself holds liberal views on social issues.

While the back and forth was going on, confrontational conservatives were latching onto the comments made by Draiman to disparage liberals. When confronted with that evidence via Wherle's tweets, Draiman acted as though Wherle's involvement brought on the anti-liberal tweets. Draiman clearly doesn't understand the English language, nor does he understand cause and effect.

Remove "ultra-liberal" from his rant. Now what do you have? Can conservatives use it to tarnish liberals outright? Nope. Draiman is to blame for this mess, through and through.

Here are some examples of conservative hate latching onto Draiman's comments. There are certainly numerous other examples. What I found is just the tip of the iceberg. None of these tweets are valid, nor would they have existed had Draiman left out the "ultra-liberal" jab.

If Michelle Malkin can cling to his comments, something is wrong with having said them in the first place. Opportunistic conservatives came right out of the woodwork to validate their overt hatred of liberals through Draiman's words. Had he refrained from politicizing the issue, we would be united together in condemnation, not getting angry over his tainted misrepresentation of liberalism. Instead of evoking disgust over the cover on the magazine, Dave Draiman has inspired a fresh cut of unsubstantiated anti-liberal hate.

You see, everything for conservatives revolves around politics. Liberals are to blame for everything. They spend every waking hour bitching about liberals. They would blame liberals for the shit stain skidmarks in their tighty whities if they had the inclination.

In response, I have deleted all of Disturbed's songs from my iTunes library. If you think that's an overreaction to these events, ask yourself if you would listen to a band who openly insulted your political views and miscategorized your politics as defending a monster like Tsarnaev.

This has nothing to do with being liberal and to suggest so tells us how apt you are to incorrectly politicize the world around you. Wherle is dead on with his criticism of Draiman. Dave Draiman can go to Hell.

http://twitchy.com/2013/07/17/go-to-hell-disturbed-vocalist-david-draiman-destroys-ultra-liberal-rolling-stone-in-epic-rant/

Maher wasn't racist on Leno

I missed Bill Maher on The Tonight Show moments ago, but to see how he did, I went straight to Twitter for the commentary. What I found, in addition to a few hateful Republicans from Texas and Louisiana (not surprising), were complaints about Maher's choice of language. He apparently referred to Barack Obama as President Blackenstein, President Kenya, and Django Unchained.

Some people on Twitter had a shit fit, crying racism.

Let me set you folks straight, ok?

Here's why it was not racism.

President Blackenstein, President Kenya, and Django Unchained are all terms representing how Republicans feel about Obama. Bill Maher is merely a voice describing the situation that is the racist attitude toward Barack Obama coming from the Right Wing types. Those nicknames are characterizations of Right Wing angst, not of Left Wing racism. Anyone who thinks such commentary is racist is a complete idiot, disconnected from the national dialogue present on the conservative side of the fence. 

In other words, you clearly don't get it. 

Maher does not believe Obama is President Blackenstein, President Kenya, or Django Unchained. He understands that Republicans think Obama is President Blackenstein, President Kenya, and Django Unchained. There are two Obamas. One is the real Obama. The other is Fantasy Obama, the one Republicans have made up in order to validate their disproportionate fear of a black man. Fantasy Obama is this big scary black guy who represents every stereotype they believe about black people.

It also is not a case of it being okay for a liberal to say something and not okay for a conservative to say something. In this instance, Maher is saying it is not okay for conservatives to perceive Barack Obama as President Blackenstein, President Kenya, and Django Unchained. He is saying it is not okay for them to be racist. He is not speaking in a derogatory fashion about the President. On the contrary, he is saying these are derogatory perceptions of the President held by conservatives. It's like if I said it's not okay for you to say the N word and in that very condemnation of you, I actually said the N word, not "N word." We're condemning you for your racism, not being racist. It's like if your five year old child said "shit" and in response you said "It's not okay to say shit." What you're doing is responding to my condemnation by saying "But you just said it." Your reasoning is like a five year old being a smart ass instead of learning right from wrong.

Any questions?

Would you rather us NOT talk about how the GOP views President Obama? Tell me why that is. Perhaps you are in denial. Perhaps you aren't aware of the problem. 

Tell me if you'd prefer that he would say "Big scary black guy" instead of the other terms. At what point does the message lose its value? The racism inside the GOP has to be called out. We can't sit here and say nothing.

(If you don't like that I called some of you idiots, here's a tip. Pay attention to the news. You are most definitely not up to speed on this particular issue. That makes you the idiot.)