You go back to the Pilgrims - and so many groups after the Pilgrims that came to America seeking to avoid persecution for being Christians and just holding Christian beliefs, you would find it hard to belief that now we’re 180 degrees from that, and now Christians are the only people that it is politically correct to persecute.
Paul’s careful presentation at rallies has contrasted with his media interviews, and with the attack ads from a hawkish 501(c)(4) that dig into interviews Paul gave years ago to the conspiracy-curious radio host Alex Jones. It was to Jones that Paul had said Iran posed “no threat” to America, for example. In an interview with Bloomberg News, asked whether he regretted talking to Jones, Paul demurred.
“I’ve been pretty open to doing a lot of interviews with a lot of different people,” he said. “And people want to characterize one or two of them, whether they’re on the right or left, you know, they’re welcome to do it. But I’ve been pretty open to doing interviews and it’s one way to get the information out.”
Asked if he listened to Jones’s show, Paul said that he simply didn’t listen to much news. “When I’m brushing my teeth in the morning I turn on the news channel,” he said, “but I’m busy all day.”
Paul’s irritation with the mainstream media followed him all week, especially after he chastised Today Show co-host Savannah Guthrie for asking him to answer a series of contradictions between the Alex Jones-era answers (2007 to 2009) and 2015. In subsequent talks with the New York Times, CNN, and Fox News, Paul found himself going meta about the problems with spot interviews.
“I think that interviews are difficult,” Paul told Fox’s Megyn Kelly. “Like right now while we’re doing this interview I can’t see you. You know, I’m in a remote—by a remote camera in South Carolina. When an interview’s contentious and when an interview is full of a lot of opinion and editorializing and it’s a long-winded question that’s setting you up to say, well, you know, you’ve been beating your wife all these years and when are you going to stop beating your wife? It’s very difficult in those contentious interviews. I don’t think it makes for good TV on both sides. And I do lose my cool. And I lost—I do lose my temper sometimes. And I should be better at that, but the thing is you don’t get any visual clues.”
But it really isn’t just Alex Jones. Paul has his own tin foil hat past, such as his concern about the “NAFTA Superhighway” and the “Amero:”
If you talk about it like it’s a conspiracy, they’ll paint you as a nut.
The Media Research Center and anti-gay hate group Family Research Council are involved.
NEW YORK (AP) — Conservative groups are trying to kill in the cradle a prospective ABC sitcom about a family upended when a teenage son comes out as gay because sex columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage is involved in the production.
The Media Research Center and Family Research Council said their members have sent more than 21,000 postcards and made more than 4,000 telephone calls asking ABC to abandon the series, tentatively titled “The Real O’Neals.” ABC is not commenting on the effort, while Savage said it is misdirected.
The show, which features actress Martha Plimpton as the family matriarch, is one of 12 comedy pilots the network is considering. Generally, about half of those pilots — at most — will get the green light.
Savage, author of the “Savage Love” advice column, said the series evolved out of a meeting he had with ABC executives where aspects of his childhood that he has written about were discussed.
While elements of the pilot were inspired by his experiences growing up in Chicago — the father is a Chicago police officer — the show “has evolved throughout the development process and it wouldn’t be accurate to describe it as autobiographical,” said Savage, an executive producer of the series.
Savage’s very involvement angers the conservative groups. In a letter sent to Ben Sherwood, president of the Disney/ABC Television Group, MRC president L. Brent Bozell and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins cited Savage’s “radical hate speech” and “venomous anti-Christian bigotry.”
“They’re choosing him for his signature, which is religious bigotry and personal offensiveness, not because he’s gay,” Bozell said. “There are a thousand and one gay people they could have chosen.”
Savage wrote in 2000 about volunteering for Republican Gary Bauer’s presidential campaign and, suffering from the flu, licking doorknobs in the campaign office in an attempt to infect others. He also tried to give a definition involving a gay sex act to Republican Rick Santorum’s name on Google.
What you see here is the tyranny of this narrative, and the narrative is that women on campuses are an especially vulnerable group who are subject to the depredations of predatory men, and that college campuses are especially dangerous places. The best data we know of suggests that if you’re of college age, you’re going to be safer and less likely to be molested if you’re a college student than if you’re not. So the idea that campuses across the country are some sort of hotbed I think is nonsense, and I, myself, totally dispute the notion that you’ve got a one in five chance of being sexually assaulted on a campus today. I just don’t believe it.
Memories Pizza is, of course, in the news today proclaiming that they will never cater gay weddings.
It looks like they either forgot to register the domain or they let it lapse.
Whatevs, cause what’s there now…Oh dear!
And if you go to the website, there’s a blue button at the bottom that says “View Our NSFWish Commerical!” If you’re worried about “sodomites” pushing “the gay agenda” and “shoving homosexuality down our throats” and the like, then you probably shouldn’t click that link.
Five’ll getcha ten you will, though…many times.
More: Memories Pizza
From Sen. Schumer’s Facebook page:
There are two simple reasons the comparison does not hold water.
First, the federal RFRA was written narrowly to protect individuals’ religious freedom from government interference unless the government or state had a compelling interest. If ever there was a compelling state interest, it is to prevent discrimination. The federal law was not contemplated to, has never been, and could never be used to justify discrimination against gays and lesbians, in the name of religious freedom or anything else.
Second, the federal RFRA was written to protect individuals’ interests from government interference, but the Indiana RFRA protects private companies and corporations. When a person or company enters the marketplace, they are doing so voluntarily, and the federal RFRA was never intended to apply to them as it would to private individuals.
The whole article is here
What is perhaps most disturbing about this story is the bifurcated reaction of the mainstream media. Almost no one who occupies a chair in a “respectable” media organization has taken the position that O’Reilly is a liar and Fox is filled with liars and it’s about time we stopped taking the network seriously as a news source. Rather, we hear from Politico’s Dylan Byers that “the Bill O’Reilly charges aren’t sticking.” Gabriel Sherman of New York magazine believes they have “backfired.” Jeremy Stahl in Slate says the case is “open to interpretation.” And a front-page New York Times analysis by Jonathan Mahler and Emily Steel describes O’Reilly as “a man who perhaps more than any other has defined the parameters and tenor of Fox News, in the process ushering in a new era of no-holds-barred, intentionally divisive news coverage.” The Times reporters leave it to the experts to decide whether what he says is true, though some of these experts—not incidentally, also cable-news veterans—are not so sure that it matters. “Bill’s credibility with his audience is not based on his record as a traditional journalist,” former CNN/US president Jonathan Klein told the reporters. “His credibility, in the view of his fans, is based on his trenchant analysis of the events of the day, his pulling no punches, his willingness to call it like it is”—which is apparently the way one defines lying, prevaricating and bullying in the world of cable news (and the Times’s “expert” sourcing).
With all the money it makes and all the viewers it misinforms, Fox News has become a kind of Frankenstein’s monster of the mainstream media’s own creation. O’Reilly, Ailes and Murdoch are not trying terribly hard to fool anyone. They know what business they’re in; they are feeding red-meat propaganda to (mostly elderly, white) right-wing knuckleheads. But the rest of the media allowed them to pretend to be an honest, albeit “controversial,” news organization, even as Fox sought to undermine the meaning of “news” in American political debate as well as in the professional canons that underlie it. And by consistently pretending these clowns are serious—well, now the joke’s on us.
A short column in The Nation that is a must read.
The primary difference between liberalism and conservatism, at least in theory, is that the latter is an ideology and the former isn’t. Conservatism, as Milton Friedman argued, posits that “freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself.” Liberalism, however, as Lionel Trilling observed, “is a large tendency rather than a concise body of doctrine.” And while John Kenneth Galbraith helpfully pointed out that only those programs and policies that honor “the emancipation of belief” are worthy of the term, liberalism, at bottom, is pragmatism. Conservatives desire low taxes and small government because this is how they define freedom. They like to pretend that liberals prefer the opposite in both cases, but the truth is that liberals are OK with whatever works.
Our political dysfunction has many sources, but one way to describe our problem is this: we have allowed conservatives to define the terms of debate at a time when conservatives have lost all sense of moral, intellectual and especially practical responsibility.
In The Liberal Imagination, Trilling famously complained that he could find “no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation.” What we had instead were “irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas.” Conservatives subsequently invested a great deal of money to address this problem, and the result was the rise of a bevy of right-wing intellectuals—Friedman, James Q. Wilson, Alan Bloom and Gertrude Himmelfarb among them—able to offer arguments that liberals ignored at their peril.
Today, however, we have no such figures and nothing resembling challenging ideas. Will, undoubtedly America’s most prominent conservative intellectual, thinks that rape victims enjoy their “privileges,” that Ebola can be spread through the air, and that global warming is a hoax. Faced with the fact that 97 percent of climatologists have formed a scientific consensus about man-made climate change, he responded, “Where did that figure come from? They pluck these things from the ether”—as if his own purposeful ignorance were a counter to empirical data.
Conservative “wise man” Bill Kristol has achieved this status by proving himself, time and again, to be the worst predictor in the history of the punditocracy. Kristol recently summed up his political philosophy in a debate about US policy in the Middle East with Laura Ingraham—herself a symbol of the decline of conservative thought—by asking, “What’s the harm of bombing them at least for a few weeks and seeing what happens?” Charles Krauthammer’s analyses evince a similarly reflexive belligerence, while David Brooks, believe it or not, is too liberal to qualify.
The New York Times’ public editor on Monday retracted her criticism of the newspaper’s reporting on the Michael Brown shooting, writing that she had “misjudged” witnesses who disputed that the unarmed teen had his hands up when he was shot to death.
Margaret Sullivan wrote that her August 21 column on the Times’ reporting in Ferguson, Mo. “was substantially flawed.”
In that column, the public editor sharply criticized Times reporters’ sourcing of witness accounts of the shooting.
The newspaper had named and quoted witnesses who said Brown had his hands up when white police Officer Darren Wilson shot at him, but it granted anonymity to witnesses who agreed with Wilson’s assertion that Brown had been moving toward him. Sullivan referred to those anonymous witnesses as “ghosts” whom readers would have a hard time believing.
“My post accused The Times of false balance … In retrospect, it’s clear to me that including that information wasn’t false balance. It was an effort to get both sides,” Sullivan wrote.
Her retraction was prompted by a Justice Department report released earlier this month that cleared Wilson of civil rights violations in the fatal shooting.
“Although there are several individuals who have stated that Brown held his hands up in an unambiguous sign of surrender prior to Wilson shooting him dead, their accounts do not support a prosecution of Wilson,” the report read.