Archive for the ‘internet/free speech’ Category

So he can ask my questions to Lindsay Beyerstein too.

According to Beyerstein, then, ”blind prejudice” has defined human society since the dawn of history, and continues to do so except in a relative handful of industrialized Western democracies.

Ms. Beyerstein must find her smug self congratulatory superiority over most of the humans who ever lived very comfortable. Lets listen to some.

You can use religious language to express your belief that gays and lesbians are disgusting second class citizens unworthy of rights that heterosexuals take for granted, but it doesn’t make your position any less bigoted. Logically, there is no reason to put same-sex relationships on a lesser legal footing than opposite sex unions, unless you think there’s something wrong with them.

I think we should pray for her.

The Phoenix Suns have decided they have a niche market and want to support it.

The Phoenix Suns on Tuesday announced that they will be wearing an alternative jersey identifying them as “Los Suns” during Wednesday’s playoff game to voice the team’s disapproval for Arizona’s tough new immigration law.

The League seems to be standing behind this and of course the media is drooling all over them.

I’m all for it myself, if the League in General and the Suns in particular wants to alienate a segment of their potential market and not allows Sports to be an escape that’s just fine. As I’ve mentioned before you can make a good living off a niche market. I would remind them of my favorite clip from this movie starting at 5:48 to 6:08

If the NBA & the Suns believe their customers are Mercado muy especializado that’s fine. I would have thought in a rough economy you would want to grab from a different niche say from the 10,000 instead of the 300 but hey it’s their call. If TBS wants their sports coverage and the advertisers want to be associated with a cause opposed by 60% of the country then that fine too.

That’s how business works. It’s their business and they can run it any way they want.

Given that 20 years ago the whole idea of “Gay Marriage” was considered nonsense was practically everyone in the country a bigot at that time?

When the subject of civil unions came up and we were assured by those pushing for them that it would not lead to Gay Marriage where those people making said assurances bigots? If not why?

When the Massachusetts supreme court mandated gay marriage by a 4-3 vote did that suddenly make the braking point where people who disagreed with the decision were now formally bigots?

If a person is age 60 or above at what age in life did they have to publicly support gay marriage to prove they are not a bigot? How about age 40?

Since gay marriage was considered a bad joke 20+ years ago can we assume that all members of congress and pols of the 20th century were bigots?

The question that the main stream media needs to ask is this? Is there any reason why you give any credence to this fool?

Update: Robert Stacy makes a similar point.

My latest article for the Examiner A Tale of Two Groups is now online. It is a comparison of two different Boston protests a peek:

One group saluted troops, bringing a Gold Star Mother on stage.

The other wrapped people in trash bags representing body bags and protested in front of a military recruitment center.

Read the whole thing and if you’ve missed any of my previous Examiner articles you can find them here. Remember every click on these articles has the effect of a few cents to DaTipJar, so share them with your friends, in fact share them with your enemies maybe they’ll become friends.