You are currently browsing the daily archive for November 15, 2010.
Was she paying attention to the lines in her script?
She comes in about a minute or so into the video. These are her lines.
Our political and religious leaders tell LGBT youth that they have no future.
They can’t serve our country openly.
Our government treats the LGBT community like second class citizens, why shouldn’t they?
And then after questions were asked, within a few hours of the video’s release she tweeted.
I fully support the NOH8 campaign and all it stands for and am proud to be part of it. But I stand by my husband’s stance on DADT.
Cognitive dissonance? I don’t get it, and quite frankly I think it’s tragic and pathetic. She’s doing more harm with her inconsistency than had she simply kept quite to begin with. Seriously, the NOH8 really must cut her out of the video, or at least refilm it giving her new lines. It make no sense whatsoever as is.
Addendum: It doesn’t help when school officials themselves are the bullies.
Second addendum: Jon covers John’s flip-flopping and contortions over DADT.
It Gets Worse PSA – The Daily Show with Jon Ste…, posted with vodpod
In the the mid-1970s democratic socialist Michael Harrington debated then Socialist Workers Party leader Peter Camejo about their differing approaches to socialism and politics. The SWP’s line has always been that no true Marxist would involve him or herself in “bourgeois politics” such as elections in which capitalist owned parties constituted the only candidates. Harrington commented that Karl Marx himself had endorsed Abraham Lincoln (and Andrew Johnson), and Camejo’s acolytes (who would later purge him from the party) accused Harrington of “slandering” Marx. When I raised this in an earlier discussion (either here or on another forum) some intense young man here or there demanded that I “prove” it. Well, a friend of mine dug up the following letter of which Marx penned himself and was a signatory.
Address of the International Working Men’s Association to Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America
Presented to U.S. Ambassador Charles Francis Adams
January 28, 1865 [A]
Written: by Marx between November 22 & 29, 1864
First Published: The Bee-Hive Newspaper, No. 169, November 7, 1865;
Transcription/Markup: Zodiac/Brian Baggins;
Online Version: Marx & Engels Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2000.
Sir:
We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.
From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver?
When an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders dared to inscribe, for the first time in the annals of the world, “slavery” on the banner of Armed Revolt, when on the very spots where hardly a century ago the idea of one great Democratic Republic had first sprung up, whence the first Declaration of the Rights of Man was issued, and the first impulse given to the European revolution of the eighteenth century; when on those very spots counterrevolution, with systematic thoroughness, gloried in rescinding “the ideas entertained at the time of the formation of the old constitution”, and maintained slavery to be “a beneficent institution”, indeed, the old solution of the great problem of “the relation of capital to labor”, and cynically proclaimed property in man “the cornerstone of the new edifice” — then the working classes of Europe understood at once, even before the fanatic partisanship of the upper classes for the Confederate gentry had given its dismal warning, that the slaveholders’ rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general holy crusade of property against labor, and that for the men of labor, with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in that tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic. Everywhere they bore therefore patiently the hardships imposed upon them by the cotton crisis, opposed enthusiastically the proslavery intervention of their betters — and, from most parts of Europe, contributed their quota of blood to the good cause.
(more below the fold)
I just took my kid up to Fortuna today (or yesterday by now I guess) to see Unstoppable. It’s probably the first action movie I’ve seen in years. Had some elements of a 1970s disaster movie. Entertaining enough if facile and trite. Boring sound track and completely unoriginal camera work.
Again, I’ve never really been into the genre, but I think an action movie might hold more attention from me if they adhere to the laws of physics. Some movies have done that in the past. The early James Bond movies for instance. Death Wish. Even to some degree Die Hard – the first one.
I know I’m in the extreme minority, but it’s not that I find the explosions objectionable. I find them tedious.
But Denzel is cool. He always plays the same character these days, but he’s cool. I don’t know who the young guy was but I guess he’s a star or something.
Actually, the best acting was done by the guys playing the dufuses who caused the problem. And the slimy corporate guy.
Recent Comments