Megyn Kelly Must Do Humor on a Higher Level than the Rest of Us

Remember when Megyn Kelly was all in a huff about the idea that Santa (or Jesus) might not be white? Well…..psych!!! It was all a joke lol, and the problem is with us “humorless” folk who just don’t get her. As Jon Stewart put it:

What appeared to me to be another segment of Fox News expressing anger and victimization over the loss of absolute power and reframing it as persecution of real America by minorities, freeloaders and socialists was actually a jest, a jape, a bit of wise-crackery.

It’s not her fault that her humor is on such a higher level than us!!!

Anyway, it’s such a relief to know that Megyn Kelly is actually a comic character, not an actual, uh, journalist? Reporter? Anchor? News host? Television presenter? Whatever. Let us all remember her wisdom, and hope that we can make her uncomfortable every chance we can get:

Share

Parsing Santorum

By Lars Karlsson (Keqs) (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-2.5 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5)], via Wikimedia Commons

With all this idiocy, we need a bit of cute around here. Have some hedgehog.

Rebutting Rick Santorum isn’t exactly a challenge, but occasionally it’s fun. Here’s something he apparently said last week:

Speaking at a Young Americans for Freedom event on Friday, former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) offered an unusual assessment of what happens when “the government is going to be the principal provider of health care for the country.” “It’s actually a pretty clever system,” the former presidential candidate explained, “Take care of the people who can vote and people who can’t vote, get rid of them as quickly as possible by not giving them care so they can’t vote against you.” [Emphasis added.]

The prevailing interpretation is that he’s saying nationalized healthcare is a way for the party in power to effectively kill people who don’t vote for them.

Look at what he said, though—while grammatically awkward, his statement allows for healthcare for “the people who can vote.” It’s the “people who can’t vote” who wouldn’t be getting healthcare, which makes no sense if the point is to stop them from voting. The only way this makes sense is if the people who aren’t voting for the party in power have already been disenfranchised somehow. Perhaps Santorum said too much here…

Or perhaps I’m overthinking the whole thing, and Rick Santorum is a fool talking out of his ass. Apply Occam’s Razor here.

Photo credit: By Lars Karlsson (Keqs) (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-2.5], via Wikimedia Commons.

Share

If the Constitution Gives You Religious Pluralism, Make Lemonade

Some day, conservative Christians may finally accept that they have always shared this country with people who don’t necessarily think like them, or at least that the First Amendment applies to all religions, not just theirs. Until then, we get to enjoy what may become a world-class display of religious diversity on the grounds of the Oklahoma Capitol.

Plus, we get to see how the conservative media can try to spin it in their own favor, or at least against people they don’t like. That’s how we got this delightful Washington Times headline: “Atheists smug as Hindus join Satanists to demand display at Oklahoma Statehouse.”

Share

Uninsured in Texas? Try the Federal Government, Says Greg Abbott

Greg Abbott hosted a forum on his website a few days ago with some policy advisors, and according to Joe Deshotel at Burnt Orange Report, his answers regarding regarding healthcare for the millions of Texans who lack health insurance in the present moment were less than mind-blowing:

To sum it up, Abbott does not support expanding Medicaid or creating and operating our own health care exchange, yet wants more flexibility from the federal government. If you can not afford health insurance, or you don’t have enough to put away in a Health Savings Account, check out the federal government and see what they have to offer! In the meantime the number one campaign issue will continue to be “repealing Obamacare,” and it says so right on his website.

Is anyone surprised by this? You shouldn’t be.

Share

Religious Liberty for Us, at Least..

The people who are trying to redefine “religious liberty” as the right to force others to reshape their lives around the personal beliefs of a particular subset of conservative Christians either never intended the term to apply to anyone but themselves (and no longer try very hard to hide it), or they really haven’t thought this through.

Share

Here’s How to Get Fox News to Switch Sides in the War on Christmas

At present, Canada, Russia, and Denmark are sort of engaged in a dispute over who actually has territorial sovereignty over the North Pole.

Fox News may have assured us that Santa Claus is white (sarcastic whew!), but they’re clearly missing the larger point here: no matter which way you slice it, Santa Claus is not American.

Denmark may have delicious breakfast pastries, but we all know that they are a bunch of socialists whose policies would mildly inconvenience those in America’s highest income brackets—in today’s political environment, that is of course synonymous with evil.

If Santa is Russian, that means we were allowing a Soviet agent unfettered access to U.S. airspace for decades. Someone should impeach Obama for that.

If Santa turns out to be Canadian? Well, Canada ain’t America, is it?

Is Santa Claus getting a visa every year to come into the U.S.? I could do a FOIA request to find out, but instead I’m just going to declare that he isn’t because freedom.

Fox News needs to get on the case of this taker who’s coming to this country illegally in order to give handouts to people who can’t even be bothered to work full-time jobs.

Share

Mandela and Marxism

South Africa The Good News / www.sagoodnews.co.za [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia CommonsLast week, we learned of the passing of Nelson Mandela, who may rank closest to a true hero that the human race has had in living memory. Alas, we also endured a litany of complaints from those for whom any association with the communism of the 1950 and 60’s is enough to taint a person forever.

This post at Booman Tribune captures the problem of applying our Western, especially our American, perspective to Mandela’s struggle. BooMan first offers Mandela’s own words, from his famous “I am prepared to die” speech delivered from the dock on April 20, 1964:

It is perhaps difficult for white South Africans, with an ingrained prejudice against communism, to understand why experienced African politicians so readily accept communists as their friends. But to us the reason is obvious. Theoretical differences, amongst those fighting against oppression, is a luxury which cannot be afforded. What is more, for many decades communists were the only political group in South Africa who were prepared to treat Africans as human beings and as their equals; who were prepared to eat with us; talk with us, live with us, and work with us. They were the only political group which was prepared to work with the Africans for the attainment of political rights and a stake in society. Because of this, there are many Africans who today tend to equate freedom with communism. They are supported in this belief by a legislature which brands all exponents of democratic government and African freedom as communists and bannned many of them, who are not communists, under the Suppression of Communism Act. Although My Lord I am not a communist and I have never been a member of the Communist Party, I myself have been banned, have been named under that pernicious Act because of the role I played in the Defiance Campaign. I have also been banned and convicted under that Act.

It is not only in internal politics that we count communists as amongst those who support our cause. In the international field, communist countries have always come to our aid. In the United Nations and other Councils of the world the communist bloc has supported the Afro-Asian struggle against colonialism and often seems to be more sympathetic to our plight than some of the Western powers. Although there is a universal condemnation of apartheid, the communist bloc speaks out against it with a louder voice than most of the western world. In these circumstances, it would take a brash young politician, such as I was in 1949, to proclaim that the Communists are our enemies.

*** Continue reading

Share

The Inefficiency of Republican Government: Christmas Edition

I wonder if people will ever figure out that, by electing Republicans to office, they are making their rhetoric about the inefficiency of government into a self-fulfilling prophecy:

Texas Values, a faith-based political advocacy organization, on Monday hosted an educational event to make sure that parents, students and others know about House Bill 308, the so-called Merry Christmas Law that the Texas Legislature passed this year. The law is meant to to ensure that public school districts can educate students about the history of traditional winter celebrations and can use traditional winter greetings, such as “Merry Christmas” and “Happy Hanukkah,” without fear of litigation.

Then again, maybe people do realize it and just don’t care.

Share

Acing the Citizenship Test

Albert Einstein citizenship NYWTS

Pictured: Not a natural-born U.S. citizen.

The concept of “citizenship” is pretty silly if you think about it. Acquiring United States citizenship is generally based on one of four factors:

  1. The birth canal through which you begin life happens to be located on sovereign United States territory at the moment of your birth;
  2. Said birth canal belongs to a U.S. citizen, regardless of where it is located at the moment of your birth;
  3. The sperm that successfully fertilized the egg that eventually became you came from a United States citizen, regardless of where any of the reproductive organs involved are located at the moment of your birth; or
  4. You complete a metric fuck-ton of paperwork, are not a “terrorist” based on the vague definition du jour, and pass a citizenship test.

The people who seem to be the most protective (defensive?) of their status as U.S. citizens tend to belong to the first group. Really, though, the privileges and immunities of United States citizenship accrued to them entirely by chance, not through any particular accomplishment or merit.

People in the fourth group, however, have to work for it, yet they don’t seem to get all that much respect for their efforts. It’s difficult to argue that one person who fits in the first group should be a U.S. citizen by virtue of birth, and another shouldn’t, but that is exactly what some people want to do in the cause of preventing so-called “anchor babies.” All this would accomplish, in reality, would be creating a secondary class of people born here but not really of here, because of the identity of their parents. That probably only seems like a fair arrangement if you genuinely believe that the location or identity of the birth canal through which you emerged somehow affects your identity as a person.

There is a point to all of this, I assure you. Read on… Continue reading

Share

Corporations Don’t Go to Church

Rick Santorum was defending the right of self-proclaimed Christian corporations to deny reproductive healthcare coverage because First Amendment:

“I mean, the idea that the First Amendment stops after you walk out of church, that it doesn’t have anything to do with how you live the rest of your life, I don’t know very many people of faith that believes that their religion ends with just worship.”

Someone needs to remind the ex-senator that this whole kerfuffle is about the supposed religious rights of corporations, not individuals. Unless people are attending church services specifically in the capacity of a representative of Hobby Lobby, corporations do not “walk out of church.” I’d say that Santorum doesn’t understand the distinction, but I suspect that he actually just doesn’t care.

He also had some odd words about the imposition of religious values:

“And President Obama is saying, ‘No, once you step outside that church, I get to impose my values on you, your religious values don’t matter anymore, it’s my values that I can impose on you,'” the Pennsylvania Republican continued. “I don’t think that’s what the First Amendment stands for. And I don’t think that’s what the court will say.”

See? It’s freedom of an employer’s religious beliefs, not freedom from an employer’s religious beliefs! I mean, that’s in The Federalist Papers, I think in the footnotes somewhere.

Share