The American Family Association is boycotting McDonald’s. Why would they boycott such a fine dining establishment? Well, first let’s have a look at what it’s not about:
- This boycott is not about hiring homosexuals.
- It is not about homosexuals eating at McDonald’s.
- It is not about how homosexual employees are treated.
According to their website, the boycott is about:
It is about McDonald’s, as a corporation, refusing to remain neutral in the culture wars. McDonald’s has chosen not to remain neutral but to give the full weight of their corporation to promoting the homosexual agenda, including homosexual marriage.
PZ Myers responds thusly:
[…] McCain has said he wants to push for a Bush Administration proposal to allow faith-based organizations to make employment decisions based on religion even when using federal funding.
TIME In Partnership With CNN
On the one hand, Christian Conservatives want to deny Federal funding to organizations like Planned Parenthood or have the government forbid them to perform perfectly legal procedures if they receive Federal funding, simply because said procedures violate their religious principles. In other words, because they don’t like what Planned Parenthood does.
On the other hand, Christian Conservatives want the government to allow faith-based organizations to violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964 by practicing religious discrimination, even when said organizations also receive Federal funding. You know, because they like what these folks do.
We all pay Federal taxes, so we all contribute to anything that is Federally funded. That’s precisely why these wingnuts don’t want places like Planned Parenthood to receive any Federal funding – they don’t want their tax dollars being used to support something that violates their principles. But they’re perfectly fine with using my tax dollars to support something that violates my principles.
Talk about wanting to eat your cake and have it. Good grief! It seems “inconsistency” is the watchword of the modern American right.
These people want to rule the world with their Bibles. And they don’t even have the good sense to know they ought to be ashamed of that.
From the rumor mill:
Many of us have commented from time to time that Obama may not just suffer from an egregious lack of humility…he may indeed suffer from a full-blown case of “narcissistic personality disorder” as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).
Dark Skies Blog
I know more than a little bit about Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). I will not discuss the details because they are far too personal, but I will tell you this:
It is impossible to know if Barack Obama, or anyone for that matter, meets the criteria for NPD without spending a considerable amount of time with the person. Many of the characteristics of this disorder are only revealed in patterns of behavior that can only be detected over time, and which true narcissists are skilled at concealing in public. So even if Obama is a narcissist, we would not know it based on what we’ve observed through the media.
These kinds of assertions are irresponsible and serve only to poison the well; a tactic that is only necessary in the absence of legitimate arguments against Obama’s suitability for the Presidency.
People with NPD inflict untold emotional, psychological and even physical damage on their victims. Carelessly tossing around the term “narcissistic personality disorder” undermines and trivializes the abuse and absolute terror that narcissists often inflict on their families and anyone else unfortunate enough to cross their paths.
Anyone who employs such a hideous tactic for the sole purpose of promoting a political agenda has no credibility, in my opinion, and I would urge anyone who has been listening to the source of such propaganda to immediately begin searching elsewhere for information on which to base your November vote.
In Fighting Ableist Language, Jill of Feministe makes the following statement:
I often use words like “crazy,” “insane,” and “nutbag” to describe people whose views I think I bizarre, illogical or bigoted. But as Tekanji points out, words mean things. And while words like “crazy” are pretty steeped in my vocabulary, it really isn’t all that hard to make an effort to purge them. Consider this Step 1.
Well, that’s just crazy! But I don’t mean Jill. I’m talking about the notion that we can’t say “crazy” anymore without offending someone we weren’t even talking about. It’s insane!
Look, I don’t usually set out to offend people, but my life does not revolve around avoiding it either. Sure, there are certain sensitive situations, “a time and a place”, etc. I care about other people’s feelings and take them into account whenever possible. But when I look at the Bush Administration, for instance, I think “crazy”, and that’s what I’m going to call it. When I heard McCain say that he would keep troops in Iraq for a hundred years, I thought “insane”. And it is. And that’s what I’m going to call it.
In response to someone who suggested that not being offended by the use of these words is possibly a result of privilege (i.e. never having been affected by mental illness) I posted the following comment on Feministe. It sums up my thoughts on the subject quite nicely.
Because you have to be asleep to believe it. – George Carlin
WARNING: The following video contains strong language.