Teabaggers Turn On GOP

Ken AshfordCongress, RepublicansLeave a Comment

Oh, my.  Look what they have created.

In Florida and Missouri and elsewhere, the tea baggers are attacking Republicans candidates for being "DC insiders".  Put another way, they are splitting the Republican party.

What does this mean for Democrats?  Well, the Democratic Party was never going to be the choice of teabaggers.  But the further the GOP moves to the right to accomodate the screeching minority, the more that centrists will gravitate to the Dems.

Put another way, Democrats will have some smooth sailing for the next election cycle — and possibly more — if this trend continues.

FRC On Old Gays

Ken AshfordSex/Morality/Family Values1 Comment

Last week, the Obama administration did a reachout to a not-much-discussed demographic — elderly lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people:

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today announced plans to establish the nation`s first national resource center to assist communities across the country in their efforts to provide services and supports for older lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals.

Experts estimate that as many as 1.5 to 4 million LGBT individuals are age 60 and older. Agencies that provide services to older individuals may be unfamiliar or uncomfortable with the needs of this group of individuals. The new Resource Center for LGBT Elders will provide information, assistance and resources for both LGBT organizations and mainstream aging services providers at the state and community level to assist them in the development and provision of culturally sensitive supports and services. The LGBT Center will also be available to educate the LGBT community about the importance of planning ahead for future long term care needs.

Naturally, the Family Research Council has a problem with this:

Apparently, our nation is never too broke to advance a radical social agenda. The agency released a statement on the Center last week, saying its purpose would be to "help community-based organizations understand the unique needs… of older LGBT individuals and assist them in implementing programs for local service providers…" In the release, HHS regurgitates the Left's propaganda to justify the waste, claiming that "1.5 to 4 million" LGBTs are age 60 and older. In reality, HHS has no idea how many LGBT seniors exist. No one does! The movement is only a few decades old, and people who are 80- or 90-years-old didn't grow up in a culture where it was acceptable to identify with this lifestyle.

[Emphasis mine]

Implicit in the FRC's press release is the thinking that it is the "few-decades-old" homosexual "movement" that makes people be gay.  After all, according to the FRC logic, gay people in their 80's and 90's couldn't possibly exist if they were alive before the gay movement.

Where can one begin to dissect this backward thinking?

First of all, even if we grant every single (absurd) premise of the FRC, it still means that, over the next few decades, there will be an increasing number of LGBT elders.  So this HHS initiative is addressing that issue.

Furthermore, the raw numbers, even if they aren't knowable to a precise degree of accuracy, don't negate the trend:

Over the next 25 years, persons in America who are 65 and older are expected to grow from about 12 to 20 percent of the total population, and various estimates indicate that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered individuals will comprise 7 to 10 percent of that senior population. Meanwhile, like the Baby Boomers of all stripes, aging gays and lesbians are radically redefining what it means to be a senior—and how they fit into the larger community. They're coming out of the closet, vocalizing their experiences and needs, and, most importantly, demanding public recognition. "If you go back 40 years, there were virtually no openly gay seniors," says Gary Gates, a senior research fellow and demographer at the Williams Institute. "But now you have a large enough group that people are paying attention."

More importantly, there is the moral aspect, something which transcends the numbers and trends.  As Pam Spaulding wrote:

It doesn't matter whether or not the specific number of elderly lgbts are known.

The point is finding out who they are and taking care of their needs, i.e. a perfect reason for the creation of this national resource center.

This is especially true since the overwhelming number of LGBT elders, in comparison to their straight counterparts, live alone.

Pam continues on the moral theme:

Expressing a belief that homosexuality is a sin is one thing. Actively trying to throwing a monkey wrench into plans to help senior citizens simply because you do not agree with their sexual orientation is entirely something else.

And part of FRC's reasoning for its opposition actually goes against the nature of Christianity.

In the Bible (Matthew 25:45), Jesus said " . . .whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me." 

So now FRC, which claims to espouse the values that Jesus taught, is implying that since the number of lgbt senior citizens are allegedly small, they shouldn't warrant any help from the government.  The organization must be reading that new Conservapedia version of the Bible everyone is talking about.

In its eagerness to espouse its version of "values," FRC seems to have abandoned basic Christian decency, as well as common human decency.

The organization forgets that some of these lgbt seniors could be someone's mother, someone's father, or a veteran.

And  isn't it moral to take care of our elderly citizens, period?

In the real world, the answer to this question would be yes. But in the bizarro world of pseudo Christian values that FRC populates, we know the answer is "only if they are not homosexuals."

Touche.

Further reading here at SAGE. [Pictured below: Gertrude Stein and Alice Toklas, two women that we know couldn't possibly have been gay due to the fact that they were together long before the homosexual movement]

Stein-and-toklas 

What’s “For Now” At Avenue Q Now

Ken AshfordRight Wing and Inept Media, TheatreLeave a Comment

Avenuq Last March, I wrote about the show Avenue Q and how they had to change their lyrics in the song "For Now".  One of the lyrics was "George Bush is only 'for now'", but of course, with the Obama relection, there was some question about what to do with that line.

The Broadway show settled for "George Bush WAS only 'for now'", while the national tour opted for "Prop 8 is only 'for now'".

The tour is over, and Avenue Q itself has moved to an off-Broadway house. (At the last Broadway performance, the lyric was changed to "THIS SHOW is only 'for now'!").

And what's the lyric now?

"FOX NEWS is only 'for now'"!

Public Option: Back From The Dead

Ken AshfordHealth CareLeave a Comment

In case you haven't heard, the "public option" which many (including me) lamented as "dead" only a few weeks ago, appears to be quite alive.  The Senate Finance Committee health care reform bill (the only one to come out of the Senate — there are several in the House), lacked the public option.  Even after it came out of committee, it didn't look like Democratic leaders in the Senate would push for the public option.

But Senate Majority leader Harry Reid surprised everyone last night by siding with the liberal democrats, and coming out for a public option.  The catch?  States could "opt out", if they wanted.

It's really not a "catch" at all, in my view.  I doubt that most state would choose to "opt out", and those that do (deeply conservative states, I suspect) will eventually regret it, and come back into the fold after 5-10 years.

Good news.

UPDATE:  Joe Lieberman is going to back a filibuster of the Senate bill.  Note, he's not merely opposing it — he's going to side with Republicans in blocking the bill to even come to a vote.  Can't believe this guy used to be a Democrat.  Steven Benen has some good observations about the ramifications of Lieberman's decision.

Facebook Can’t Leave Well Enough Alone, Preserves The Deceased

Ken AshfordPopular Culture, Random MusingsLeave a Comment

(1)  This annoying live feed thing can be "fixed" with a little workaround.  Simply click and drag your "status updates" on that lefthand column, and place it above the "news feeds".  Facebook will now appear close to what it was before.

(2)  Facebook is now urging you to "reconnect" with your friends that you haven't interacted with in a while.  Why?  Why is it any of Facebook's business?  This isn't going over too well, by the way:

On Twitter, a storm of complaints and jokes popped up about the Reconnect feature, such as user jessefarmer, who wrote, “‘Facebook’s “reconnect with him’ feature just recommended I write on a dead friend’s wall.” User KenHuffman tweeted, “Facebook is suggesting that I reconnect with my wife by writing on her wall. I’m thinking coming home every night is a tad more effective,” while Jweiler wrote, “OH: The new “reconnect” feature on Facebook could be renamed “Unfriend Suggestion.”

(3)  And speaking of the dead on Facebook, Facebook clarified its "dead person" policy yesterday — they will leave their page and profile up, upon request:

Obviously, we wanted to be able to model people's relationships on Facebook, but how do you deal with an interaction with someone who is no longer able to log on? When someone leaves us, they don't leave our memories or our social network. To reflect that reality, we created the idea of "memorialized" profiles as a place where people can save and share their memories of those who've passed.

***

When an account is memorialized, we also set privacy so that only confirmed friends can see the profile or locate it in search. We try to protect the deceased's privacy by removing sensitive information such as contact information and status updates. Memorializing an account also prevents anyone from logging into it in the future, while still enabling friends and family to leave posts on the profile Wall in remembrance.

If you have a friend or a family member whose profile should be memorialized, please contact us, so their memory can properly live on among their friends on Facebook.

Nice touch, I guess.

Facebook-memorial-accounts-29711-1256581821-3

Baby Einstein? Not So Much

Ken AshfordScience & Technology, Sex/Morality/Family Values1 Comment

Via Heather:

Disney is offering a refund to buyers of its ubiquitous “Baby Einstein” videos, which did not, as promised, turn babies into wunderkinds. Apparently, all those puppets, bright colors, and songs were what we had feared all along—a mind-numbing way to occupy infants.

This news has rocked the parenting world, which had embraced the videos as a miraculous child-rearing staple. Videos that make your kid smarter while you prepare dinner? Genius!

Or not. According to the article, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children under two years old stay away from watching screens. In the letter threatening Disney with a class-action lawsuit for "deceptive advertising," public health lawyers hired by Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood cited a study which found a link between early television exposure and later problems with attention span.

***

Disney’s refund is about as close as we’re going to get to an actual admission that we were sold snake oil, and it casts a pall over the other "educational" toys out there.

Read the whole thing.

It should be noted that, although Disney is offering refunds, it is not admitting the Einstein videos are ineffective:

Instead, the company believes that consumers find value in the product. They said a money-back guarantee is actually their standard policy.

Right.  It's their "standard policy"… only after getting slapped with a class-action lawsuit.

Disney has also toned down its claims regarding Baby Einstein since the lawsuit came out.

I'm no child psychologist (although I took a few classes), but it seems to me that for particularly young ages, these Baby Einstein videos probably are entertaining and not very educational.  Although they might touch on educational subjects, I don't think the subject matter is going to "sink in" with your poopy-diapered infants.  It's the equivalent of sleeping with your geometry book under your pillow, except that it has cute music and puppets.  Apparently, many smarter people than me have come to that same conclusion.

See for youself — this is "Baby Galileo Discovering The Sky" from the Baby Einstein series:

Again, this strikes me as eye candy, nothing more.

And, as Heather points out, there's an inherent danger in merely propping your baby in front of a video screen at the expense of human interaction — a problem which goes beyond just the Baby Einstein brand of videos. So the bottom line, I suppose: while videos might keep your little one occupied for a while, it's not a substitute for actual parenting.  And overdoing it can actually hurt your child developmentally.

None of this, of course, applies to the videos of Dan Zanes (also marketed by Disney, I believe), who was a childhood friend of mine back in Concord New Hampshire:

 

The White House vs. Fox News

Ken AshfordRight Wing and Inept Media2 Comments

So many people are covering this — I have little to add.

For those not paying attention, the Obama White House is openly condemning Fox News for its biased reporting.  Fox News is crying foul.

In the latest volley, Fox News is claiming that the White House doesn't know the difference between its opinion programming (Beck, Hannity, etc.) and actual news programming.  Their news programming, Fox insists, really is "fair and balanced".

That, of course, is a joke.  Their news programming reflects the opinions of their opinion programming, a point made well by Media Matters here:

 

An Opening Paragraph We Didn’t Particularly Enjoy Reading

Ken AshfordCourts/Law, Crime, Local InterestLeave a Comment

From the Boston Herald:

RALEIGH, N.C. — Twenty murderers, rapists and robbers sentenced to life in North Carolina prisons in the 1970s will be released at the end of October as a result of recent court rulings.

Why?

Well, basically it comes down to this.  These murderers, rapists, and robberts were sentenced to life in prison in the 1970s as a result of their crime.

In 1981, the NC sentencing guidelines were revised.  Essentially, all sentences were cut in half.  The new guildelines were applied retroactively.

One industrious lifer argued to the court that, back in the 1970s, the sentencing guidelines interpreted "life in prison" as meaning "80 years".  Therefore, when the 1981 changes came along, that meant that their sentence was, effectively, 40 years.

Last week, the highest court of North Carolina agreed with this interpretation.

So, with some staturorily-recognized time off for good behavior, some "lifers" are now being set free, having served their sentence.  More will be released in the decade to come.

Thank you, legal fluke.

[For what it is worth — since 1994, when North Carolina eliminated parole, a life sentence in North Carolina has meant the convict will die behind bars. But only first-degree murder can carry a life sentence, and now, the shortest sentence someone convicted now of first-degree forcible rape can serve is 12 years.]

How Many Republicans Are Out There?

Ken AshfordHealth Care, Republicans1 Comment

The answer may surprise you.

There's a lot of meat to this Washington Post-ABC News poll. The Washington Post leads with the most relevant to today's political debate: health care.

Specifically, people are warming up to the public option:

On the issue that has been perhaps the most pronounced flash point in the national debate, 57 percent of all Americans now favor a public insurance option, while 40 percent oppose it. Support has risen since mid-August, when a bare majority, 52 percent, said they favored it. (In a June Post-ABC poll, support was 62 percent.)

If a public plan were run by the states and available only to those who lack affordable private options, support for it jumps to 76 percent. Under those circumstances, even a majority of Republicans, 56 percent, would be in favor of it, about double their level of support without such a limitation.

What demographic accounts for the change?  Independents and senior citizens.  Yup.  After a summer of falling for scare tactics (death panels, etc.), they finally listened long enough to hear the truth. 

But here's the part I want to draw your attention to:

Only 20 percent of adults identify themselves as Republicans, little changed in recent months, but still the lowest single number in Post-ABC polls since 1983. Political independents continue to make up the largest group, at 42 percent of respondents; 33 percent call themselves Democrats.

That's right.  Despite its efforts at "rebranding", only 20% of the people identify themselves as Republican.  Remember, Ross Perot, when he ran for election, got 19% of the vote.  In other words, Republicans are becoming a fringe party.

The public isn't buying what Republicans are selling. President Obama's support isn't as strong as it was — though a 57% approval rating is pretty impressive at this point — but the GOP has failed to capitalize. To the contrary, the minority, instead of positioning itself as a serious, credible alternative, is moving backwards.

Full poll graphic below…

Read More

“Once On This Island” Too Offensive For One Uptight Pastor

Ken AshfordGodstuff, Theatre1 Comment

Swank In my occasional forays into wingnuttia land, I often check the writings of Reverand Grant Swank, a columnist at Renew America and a pastor New Hope Church in Windham, Maine.  His writings are unintentionally hysterical.

Imagine my joy when I read his latest column "Eastern Nazarene College anti-Christian play presented", which is essentially a reprint of an email he sent to the President of Eastern Nazarine College, located in Boston's South Shore.

Dear ENC President Corlis McGee:

I just sat through the 4 pm October 17 musical, "Once On This Island," in Cove Center.

"Once On This Island" is a calypso-style musical about an ill-fated romance between Ti Moune, a dark-skinned peasant girl, and Daniel Beauxhomme, a light-skinned descendant of French plantation owners and their slaves. 

Here's a scene from the actual production that Swank saw (taken from the local paper in Quincy, the Patriot-Ledger):

G113000be69111a37c21f81a25759280d1368157c781a55 

"Once On This Island" is more than a love story; it addresses racism and class struggle on a post-coloniel Carribean island.  It's about muli-culturalism and diversity.

So fans of Pastor Swank can guess what he thought of it.

I am disappointed and disgusted.

Of course he is.

This play should never be presented on a Christian campus, let alone a holiness campus.

What's the difference between a "Christian campus" and a "holiness campus"?  Apparently, the latter would never do "Once On This Island".

Its accent on godS — in the plural — was throughout, particularly praying constantly to these gods, in one instance for gods to heal a sick body. There is only one God who appeared in Christ. There is no room for polytheism laced throughout an ENC drama department presentation.

Riiight.  I mean… it's not as if "multicultural understanding" is a defining value of the Eastern Nazarene College.  Excuse me?  Oh.. really?

At the Friday homecoming Marriott dinner, when the musical was highlighted with a lead actress singing, she sang out "My God. . ." in the singular. That obviously told the attendees that she was praying to the biblical God, the deity adhered to by Eastern Nazarene College. However, when she sang that same song in the Saturday musical, "God" was changed to repeated mentioning of "gods," not only by this one singer but all singers in one selection after another.

Ah.  They pulled a bait-and-switch on Pastor Swank.  As an alumni of ENC, he attended the Friday homecoming dinner at that Marriott (strawberry shortcake for dessert, I'm guessing), and the drama department did a little preview.  But they omitted the "s", thereby fooling Pastor Swank into coming to see the full show.  Sucker.

Further, there were two lovers in the play who spent the night together — unmarried. Such was an obvious scene depicting just that, no indirect implications implied. It was evident without apology or qualification.

Because in the REAL world, two unmarried lovers NEVER spend the night together.  Or if they do, there's a lot of apology and qualification.

But enough about my sex life.  Back to Michael Medved's Pastor Swank's review:

In addition, there was much so-called dancing throughout the musical. The dancing was without doubt in most instances quite suggestive. This underlined most disturbingly the demonic overtones from start to finish. There is no polite way to state that but to state the strong term "demonic."

Yes, let's state it a couple more times.  Demonic, demonic, demonic.

Don't these people know that they dance the Viennese Waltz, hankies aflutter, to creole music?

Moreover, who scheduled this offensive presentation on none other than the Lord's Day afternoon at 4 o-clock?

Presumably, he's talking about the special benefit performance held yesterday.  I hope it was a full house.

Anyway, having unleashed his wrath at the play with colored people, Pastor Swank turned to… yes… the program.  Apparently, the play was too demonic for Swank to watch, so he spent the entire time reading the program, looking for things to condemn.

In the printed musical program on page 2, the musical director and drama department head both tried to legitimatize the musical as being multicultural, a lesson in colonialism, etc. Even praise was given to students sharing with one another their understandings of "the faith." This does not wash with any thinking Christian, that is, when sitting through the production. These two program page 2 statements are limp at best, insulting at worst.

Pastor Swank doesn't have a problem with "multiculturalism" in the performing arts, so long as it represents his (and only his) brand of Christian culturalism.  (The "multi" part is superfluous and a much un-needed syllable).

The musical was not a "child-friendly" performance because of the violence and demonic/ghost insertions. What child should have been subjected, for instance, to scenes in which knives were put to humans' necks under threat of slaying these individuals?

One wonders if Swank missed the ENC college of Phantom of the Opera.

I am sorry that my granddaughter, age 5, was seated in the audience.

"I'm sorrier still that her parents didn't want me to sit with them."

A teen grandchild of mine was planning on attending ENC in a couple of years. Now, not so.

ENC's loss?

My wife and I will not be contributing moneys henceforth to ENC.

Thery won't be contributing moneyS because the play sang about godS.

Though having attended ENC plays for decades, I doubt if I will ever trust an ENC production again. I will never recommend friends attending an ENC play, though I have been a chief supporter of same for years.

You won't recommend friends who attend an ENC play, Pastor?  That's going nuclear, dude!

What is particularly sad is that the young students in the musical have now been given the message that this kind of anti-Christian production is legitimate at Eastern Nazarene College; therefore, they will expect same for future productions. This should never happen again.

"They should just keep doing The Wizard of Oz and Seussical until their ears bleed."

These students should be read such emails as this one. And the musical director as well as drama department head should be given this email with directives to squash any hopes of scheduling this kind of content.

"And what about book-burning, too?  Can we get an amen to book-burning?!?"

I noted in the musical program on page 2….

Oh Christs.  We're back to the program.

I noted in the musical program on page 2 there a sentence that the college mission statement has been changed. A red flag went up on that sentence.

Judging by the writing style of their alumni, perhaps the college ought to focus on English language skills.

Why has that mission statement been changed? I then would appreciate you mailing to me the "old" mission statement" and the "new" one to compare what change has been made for as far as I know we alumni have not been informed of any change in the college mission statement.

Pastor, you might want to read here.  Or this, from Wikipedia:

The president and trustees of the college determined in 1931, one year after gaining its charter to grant degrees in Massachusetts, that it is part of the college's mission to be "distinctly interdenominational and cosmopolitan in service." Students are not required to profess any religion, but faculty members are required to be Christians.

The sad fact is that ENC was not intended to be the Christian Tightwad College.

Finally, I am seriously posting on well-read Internet websites the above for Eastern Nazarene College graduates and prospective students to read what has happened in Cove Center this homecoming weekend.

You go, girl.

If the world does not know, I fear that the drama department is going to continue its present track of improper productions at the college from which I graduated.

I cannot envision my professors Bertha Munro, Edith Cove, Alvin Kaufman and such ever countenancing a musical such as has been offered this homecoming event 2009. This kind of "opening up the door" to obscene, anti-Christian productions simply cannot continue. If it does, I will be at the forefront to communicate with as many alumni as I can muster about this horrific intrusion.

Oh, Pastor.  You were probably ignored when you were a student at ENC.  What makes you think anybody cares what you think now?

Falcon Heene

Ken AshfordBreaking NewsLeave a Comment

Genthumb I have a rather bad feeling about this boy trapped in the balloon.

I have a rather bad feeling he is not hiding, but rather, he fell.

And we're going to get all kinds of people making snap judgments about how bad the parents were — before we have any clear evidence that they were negligent.  To blunt those, let me get a few things said.  Accidents happen.  And because they were smart and eccentric and mixed-race (yes, some conservative bloggers think that's relevent) and on Wife Swap, that means nothing.

I suppose we'll know before nightfall.

UPDATE (6:05 pm):  As I'm typing, I was just watching local Colorado news.  They just announced he's been found.  He's alive.  He was in the house, hiding in the attic in the garage in a box.  So much for the house searches earlier today.  Networks will have it shortly.