piranha: red origami crane (Default)
among other things, she yaps about matthew shepard:

Although I am a supporter of the death penalty in extreme cases, I think there were ambiguities here: The aimless hooligans who beat Shepard and tied him to a fence perhaps didn't necessarily mean to kill him. Despite my abhorrence of the crime, I was a dissenter about the sanctification of Shepard, a charming young man with a troubled family background who had faced many difficulties in life because of his frailty and lack of conventional masculinity.

Only a week before, Shepard had expressed fears about being killed. Given that apprehension, it is still inexplicable -- if the case is examined only through a political lens -- why Shepard would leave a public place in the company of such blatant thugs.

what the fucking fuck? nevermind her complete lack of understanding of hate crime legislation. what has me really upset here is how she is blaming the victim. sanctification? sanctification is not required! all it takes is the recognition that regular folks do not deserve to be brutally killed ('regular' as in, they didn't physically threaten or attack you). perhaps the attackers didn't MEAN it? they PLOTTED it. they PISTOL-WHIPPED him. when your actions kill somebody, and not accidentally because they ran out into the street in front of you, but because you're robbed them and beat the shit out of them, i don't give a fuck whether you MEANT it. why the victim came with you doesn't matter. even if the victim did something stupid. acting carelessly does NOT excuse or justify being robbed and beaten and left to die.

it's especially poignant, because in her little diatribe against hate crime legislation she's showing us right here WHY we need that legislation, because she thinks it's even remotely justified, this inquisition into WHY this gay man did anything "suspicious". i don't often read her column because she's such a pretentious, kettle-calls-pot-black twit, but this one takes the cake. i am writing to salon after i come down from mt fury.

dear salon. i am not going to threaten you with letting my subscription lapse, because you generally offer me good value. but can you not find somebody less patronizingly offensive and more intellectually rigourous in her place? look, the NYT let bill kristol go! surely it's time to cut her loose, because listening to too much talk radio has rotted her brain.
piranha: red origami crane (Default)
about al-qaeda. nevertheless i laughed out loud when i saw this headline: "Al Qaeda Condemns 'Unfair' Pro-Obama Press Bias".

wingnuts the world over agree, from faux news to al qaeda -- that makes me ponder whether the press didn't get it just right.

i don't want to get into a long rant about press bias, but i purposely stayed away from almost all right-wing reporting this year because i just cannot stomach the lack of intelligent conservative commentary anymore; what little there is drowns in vitriol and conspiracy chatter. and yet i was informed in detail about rezko, ayers, wright, raines, the "present" votes, the half-brother in poverty, the illegal immigrant aunt, "spread the wealth", "sex ed for kindergarteners", and even the ludicrous "lover in exile", and "fake" birth certificate. what exactly did the so-called liberal press miss there? IMO there was a lot more coverage of obama's shadier associations than of mccain's.

indeed, they reported more positive things about obama's campaign than about mccain's -- well, yeah, a campaign that's disciplined, well-run, successful, whipping up hope at rallies _is_ more positive than one that's disorganized, putting out a different message a week, and whipping up hatred at rallies. if it bleeds, it leads -- witness sarah palin who got a lot more coverage (and still does) than she deserved, in part because she is such a train wreck in motion which mysteriously inspires accolades from the right wing.
piranha: red origami crane (Default)

quiet day; did some chores, and finally caught up on daily show and colbert report.

why, oh why do comedy shows continue to ask sharper questions than most of the alleged "liberal elite" of the MSM? during this US election political blogs have consistently been ahead of the MSM in pointing out serious problems and lies, and comedy show writers apparently read blogs. the MSM coverage of ACORN, for example, has been shameful. i don't give a fuck whether the mccains don't see each other often and whether cindy is possibly lonely (i am looking at you, NYT; why was this utterly craptastic psychobabble on your front page? miss the clintons so much?).

*stops self from breaking out into full rant mode*.
piranha: red origami crane (Default)
i should stop reading clueless shit; it depresses me. but then i wouldn't get to read all the amazing clueful responses to it either. like this one:

love letter to a fat man (via [livejournal.com profile] firecat).

what a beautiful response to a hateful article. careful when reading the article itself; it might fill you with dread in its cold, casual assessment of numbers, and only numbers.

i left the following feedback at MSN's site:

I will no longer peruse your site, because this hateful article made me sick to my stomach.

What if no one were fat? By Shirley Skeel.

What if nobody were Jewish? Sounds familiar?

I'd be more interested in What if nobody were hateful. Imagine the savings; they'd outdo the posited ones by some orders of magnitude. But Shirley Skeel and those who thought this piece of unmitigated dreck worthy of publication suffer from a nasty failure of imagination. And that's absolutely the kindest thing I can say about them.


piranha: red origami crane (Default)
renaissance poisson

July 2015

   123 4

Most Popular Tags

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags


RSS Atom