Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
Then, again, the war on drugs has a few collateral damages like any war.
http://dorothygaines.org/
http://dorothygaines.org/
Ain't No Time for Hate
- Thread starter Etoile
- Start date
You're right that ratings are numbers but all a rating/readership tells you is the number of people that have listened or read on a given day. It doesn't tell you what those people think or feel about what they read and these men are shock jocks as much as Howard Stern is/was (don't know if he's still on air or not). I don't know if anyone has polled the people that listen to these shows so I can only speak for those I know but the vast majority that I know listen for one of two reasons, 1) because they want something to make them chuckle, recognizing the lunacy that these men spew even if they have a conservative bent themselves or 2) because they disagree with them and just tune in randomly now and then to hear the crazy arguments on the other side of the fence from where they sit.
Granted this is just my experience of the people around me that listen to these shows now and then but then again all I can speak from is my own experience.
Oftentimes out of fear. No one really wants a whackjob to turn their attention on them, particularly if they think said whackjob may become violent. Sometimes too out of a sense that there's not really a lot they can do. After all you can call up the Limbaugh or Savage show but there's not gaurantee you'll get on the air and if you do all that's likely to happen is that you'll be ridiculed and hung up on and it's not like you can get them canceled since they aren't actually violating any laws.
Homburg
Daring greatly
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
- Posts
- 13,578
Aw, shucks
Seriously though, I've been reevaluating my memes, and some thing really just slap you in the face. Reading the CIA Worldbook site has that effect, as I was sitting reading the infant mortality rates, percentage of GDP being spent on healthcare, etc, and those numbers, sans any comment, caused me to question all the ranting and screaming against socialised medicine. Being uninsured in a previous job and finding out that Virginia has an excellent program by which children of uninsured families can get free (and good) health insurance, and taking advantage of that program, likewise caused me to rethink healthcare more, and social programs in general.
It's an education. Here I am a college grad, in a good job, but uninsured. The social worker looked at my income, the number of kids, etc and said we were likely to be eligible. Said social worker was stressed and overworked, but utterly non-judgemental and just wanted to help me get my kids some health coverage. That whole indpependent, self-reliant thing goes out the window when your kids have no health insurance other than you pulling coin out of your pocket, and all I was thinking about was what would happen if one of them got hurt?
A few more things happened in my life, and the lives of those I hold dear, that caused me to take a hard look at other programs and ideas. While we do not have a professed and codified duty to support those who cannot support themselves, it is in our best interest as a society. If my kids were cold and hungry and I had no way to get work to feed them, you can bet your ass that I would do whatever it would take to feed those mouths, law bedamned. The local, state, and federal programs in place to handle those situations are what keeps such dire means from being needed. I like that idea.
Sure, there are those that take advantage of the situation, and I'm sure it's just awful that they soak off the public dime to eke out their miserable existences, but it does help keep some of them off the streets, and some of them away from crime. That is worth something in my eyes.
And I mentioned the roof on fire idea, and I figure it might bear repeating, as it discusses the idea of govt involvement. I'm doing this from memory, so I might miss details:
Say you go outside tonight, look down the street, and see that your neighbour's roof is on fire two houses down. Well, hell, it's two houses down, no big deal right? It's his problem after all. We keep hearing how govt should stay out of people's business, and we should keep our nose to our own business as well. So let that house burn, it's that guy's problem.
Then the wind picks up and a burning ember hits the roof of the house next door. Still that guy's problem, right? And if the wind picks up again?
So while I agree that the Constitution does not talk about govt being involved in charity, and doesn't give them the authority, it doesn't say we can't, and it does privde for various powers that can easily be held over such an idea. What would the Founding Fathers think of it? They'd have a million other things to worry over and would likely take more offense at our pernicious meddling overseas than our glad-hearted charity at home.
Homburg
Daring greatly
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
- Posts
- 13,578
I studied penology for a bit, and did some coursework in that subject. Interesting stuff, especially as it was taught by a former sheriff from CA, so he knew his way around the inside of a jail.
The big lesson that stuck hardest for me was a story about a particular CA prison (whose name I sadly cannot recall). It was built with a very different principle and ideals in mind, and ran very differently from your average prison. The biggest difference was that it was designed and intended to be as self-sufficient as possible. If plumbing needed to be done, inmates with plumbing skills were given tools and told to do it. They were also to train other inmates on how to do plumbing. Same can be said for electrical work, bricklaying, etc. If no one had those skills, the prison would bring in qualified instructors and train selected volunteers to do those jobs.
This prison also operated a fairly large-scale farm that grew all of their produce, with prisoners handling the maintenance, planting, upkeep, etc. When they got to the point where they grew excess, it was traded to other producers to obtain items they could not produce. They handled their clothing, fixtures, etc all the same way.
The point was not self-sufficiency for the sake of self-sufficiency, but to use that need for self-sufficiency as a way to get the prisoners involved and get them trained and experienced. The results were impressive. The recidivism rate (ie how often a released convict winds up back in the pen) was extremely low, their incidence of vandalism within the prison absurdly low (who wants to wreck something that they, or a fellow inmate, spents days to build?), and violence was low as well (as the morale was higher, and the men tended to feel like they might have a chance when they got out). By those metrics, it was a wildly successful prison.
It was brought low by capitalism, of course. Various businesses that provided the services the inmates were doing in other prisons sued the state of California citing the need for competitive bidding, claiming that the prison was not handling the call for services within state guidelines and getting the required bids. When the prison just bid on the work themselves, the contractors sued again, citing unfair business practices, as the prison did not have to pay the inamtes a legal wage. The contractor won their challenges, and the prison had to stop providing its' own services. The recidivism shot up, vandalism climbed like crazy, and violence went up to leves higher than comparable institutions.
The point to this is to give an anecdotal example of how certain forms of rehabilitation and reentry are very strongly positive. A lot of guys in the pen have no real work skills and nothing to offer an employer. They might to go straight, but they have an empty resume, and a prison term on their record. Tough wall to climb.
I know three people that did serious time in prison. One is an incredible cook, and learned to cook in prison. He's a post-release succes, and hasn't gone back. Probably never will, and he'll never lack for employment so long as people want to eat. Another bounced through a few jobs, wound up selling drugs again, and I haven't heard what happened to him. The third also got OTJ training while in prison, and went into maintenance. Like the first, he has no real problems, and will never go back. Anecdotal, and a small sampling, but it follows along with the example above.
And so far as three strikes rules and mandatory sentencing goes, we pay our judges to judge. Why take authority and discretion away from them? why do we have them at all in this case? Minor things like adding five years if a firearm is used in commission of a crime I can dig. Setting minimum LONG sentences for possession with intent? Come on.
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
Aw, shucks
Seriously though, I've been reevaluating my memes, and some thing really just slap you in the face. Reading the CIA Worldbook site has that effect, as I was sitting reading the infant mortality rates, percentage of GDP being spent on healthcare, etc, and those numbers, sans any comment, caused me to question all the ranting and screaming against socialised medicine. Being uninsured in a previous job and finding out that Virginia has an excellent program by which children of uninsured families can get free (and good) health insurance, and taking advantage of that program, likewise caused me to rethink healthcare more, and social programs in general.
It's an education. Here I am a college grad, in a good job, but uninsured. The social worker looked at my income, the number of kids, etc and said we were likely to be eligible. Said social worker was stressed and overworked, but utterly non-judgemental and just wanted to help me get my kids some health coverage. That whole indpependent, self-reliant thing goes out the window when your kids have no health insurance other than you pulling coin out of your pocket, and all I was thinking about was what would happen if one of them got hurt?
A few more things happened in my life, and the lives of those I hold dear, that caused me to take a hard look at other programs and ideas. While we do not have a professed and codified duty to support those who cannot support themselves, it is in our best interest as a society. If my kids were cold and hungry and I had no way to get work to feed them, you can bet your ass that I would do whatever it would take to feed those mouths, law bedamned. The local, state, and federal programs in place to handle those situations are what keeps such dire means from being needed. I like that idea.
Sure, there are those that take advantage of the situation, and I'm sure it's just awful that they soak off the public dime to eke out their miserable existences, but it does help keep some of them off the streets, and some of them away from crime. That is worth something in my eyes.
And I mentioned the roof on fire idea, and I figure it might bear repeating, as it discusses the idea of govt involvement. I'm doing this from memory, so I might miss details:
Say you go outside tonight, look down the street, and see that your neighbour's roof is on fire two houses down. Well, hell, it's two houses down, no big deal right? It's his problem after all. We keep hearing how govt should stay out of people's business, and we should keep our nose to our own business as well. So let that house burn, it's that guy's problem.
Then the wind picks up and a burning ember hits the roof of the house next door. Still that guy's problem, right? And if the wind picks up again?
So while I agree that the Constitution does not talk about govt being involved in charity, and doesn't give them the authority, it doesn't say we can't, and it does privde for various powers that can easily be held over such an idea. What would the Founding Fathers think of it? They'd have a million other things to worry over and would likely take more offense at our pernicious meddling overseas than our glad-hearted charity at home.
Ben Franklin. The Lightning Rod. The stem-cell research and open-source program of its day.
People actually believed in doing things for the general good of humanity. And then making bank off their aphorisms. 'Cause smart people have multiple ideas.
MN actually was a pioneer in non medicaid care for lower middle class people in the crunch. Then that went kid-only and now I don't even know if it exists. So it's preferable to have a waitress enter the welfare system and lose her house if she gets in a car wreck than it is to just fix her up.
Last edited:
Where do criminals come from? Good question. Research has shown that some are born; this is particularly true of those who are sociopaths. This doesn't come from the environment but from some unusual genetic combination that we don't as yet understand. These are not the ones who blame videogames or hard rock music.
These are the exception though. Most criminals are created in the environment wherein they grow up. Poverty, ignorance, intolerance all play a part in the making of a criminal. Additionally, the gang culture (and it is one), a lack of effective parenting, drugs, and other environmental effects add to the problem.
And what we end up with is overcrowded prisons that are higher education for the incarcerated. When a kid is sent to prison, he often comes out a better criminal than when he went in.
It appears that we have a choice in dealing with kids who may or may not become criminals. We can find some way to prevent them from ever becoming criminals (better schools, training programs, parenting classes for young parents, etc.) which most states either cannot or will not do. Or, we can find a way for the penal system to provide rehabilitation (education, therapy, training, etc.) for first time offenders who may be turned to a more productive life. Or we can lock them up and let them serve their time and get out to do the same thing again. Of course, there are always some who do decide to change their lives and never go back to prison, but again, they are an exception.
It seems to me that prevention is a much more efficient use of money, but hey -- I'm a wild eyed liberal. What do I know? (Ignore that doctorate in psychology)
These are the exception though. Most criminals are created in the environment wherein they grow up. Poverty, ignorance, intolerance all play a part in the making of a criminal. Additionally, the gang culture (and it is one), a lack of effective parenting, drugs, and other environmental effects add to the problem.
And what we end up with is overcrowded prisons that are higher education for the incarcerated. When a kid is sent to prison, he often comes out a better criminal than when he went in.
It appears that we have a choice in dealing with kids who may or may not become criminals. We can find some way to prevent them from ever becoming criminals (better schools, training programs, parenting classes for young parents, etc.) which most states either cannot or will not do. Or, we can find a way for the penal system to provide rehabilitation (education, therapy, training, etc.) for first time offenders who may be turned to a more productive life. Or we can lock them up and let them serve their time and get out to do the same thing again. Of course, there are always some who do decide to change their lives and never go back to prison, but again, they are an exception.
It seems to me that prevention is a much more efficient use of money, but hey -- I'm a wild eyed liberal. What do I know? (Ignore that doctorate in psychology)
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
Elitist.
JMohegan
.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2006
- Posts
- 8,226
I'm having a hard time understanding why people find bigoted hate-mongering funny. Maybe that says something about differing senses of humor, or maybe it says something else, I don't know. But I definitely see value in encouraging the people you describe to spend some time connecting the dots.
Ratings lead to greater ad revenues, which lead to an expansion of air time devoted to hate-mongering, which increases the scope and power of the hating voice.
Ratings lead to political clout, as candidates look at the electorate and calculate what's needed to win. (As an aside, did you know that Rush Limbaugh had been pushing Palin as the VP choice for months before McCain made his selection? Does anybody question whether the clout of rabid radio had an impact on McCain's decision to hop into bed with the culture warriors? I don't.)
Adding to the commercial and political success of the hate-mongering airwaves is NOT a neutral event. If people realize this and keep listening, I think it's fair to question just how un-bigoted those listeners really are.
No, no, no - I'm not suggesting that people confront the bloviating pricks who run those shows. Nor am I suggesting that people walk up to whackjobs and call them on their bigotry.
You spoke in an earlier post about "giving whomever is focusing on them another point of view," and THAT is exactly what I would recommend.
Help any listeners you know to connect the dots (as above).
Join efforts such as this one: Michael Savage loses Home Depot, Sears over autism flap. (See how that works? When people are genuinely outraged, they DO something! And actual, tangible change can result.)
When you hear that rabid radio is pushing a letter-writing or email campaign, urging listeners to pressure Congress on some issue, write your own letters or emails to present the alternative view - and urge your like-minded friends, family, and neighbors to do the same.
Counteract anti-gay venom by supporting responsible, inclusive sex ed in your local high schools. Speak up when people discuss gay rights issues; give *real* decency an active voice.
Those are the types of thing I'm suggesting, and failure to do any of it is the "silence" to which I object.
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
I think it's utterly disingenuous to imply that the majority of them are not. I know people like train wrecks, I love a good train wreck. But let's put it this way, I wasn't GLUED to Art Bell, you know? If I believed strongly in the assertions of the callers, if I was CONVINCED of Area 51, I'd have tuned in more closely.
I've yet to meet one person who listens to these things without agreeing with the worst of them. I've been cooped up in an apartment full of them and precisely who are these paid moderates who call in in rabid agreement half the time?
Last edited:
ThorkelGriersen
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Posts
- 513
My brother listens to Russ Limbaugh everyday in the car because he is convinced that RL is the unofficial spokesperson for Bush/Cheney and the neo-cons. He said that ideas are "flown" first on RL--almost like a test market or a "prep" for the devotees so that they have their public pressure campaigns ready the minute something is launched. I think he is correct in this, but I simply can't take the hate and lack of any rational thought. BTW he listens in the car only because RL makes my sister-in-law ill.
HEAR! HEAR!
I am one of those persons who cannot hear of any such campaign, without grabbing the phone or sending an e-mail to make my displeasure known. If more people did this it could make a real difference.
Also, in the Miami/ Ft Lauderdale area it is not unusual to be stopped in malls and such by Nielson types. I really never listen to radio [my car audio is loaded with CDs]. When asked about someone like Russ L, I usually say: "I don't watch day-time TV." If the interviewer says, "Well, it's radio." I reply: "Same thing."
Actually the people who do these shows [I know a couple] don't give a damn whether the audience agrees or disagrees. They only care about the numbers, because that sells air time and determines their pay. If Russ didn't have his audience, he wouldn't have a $400 million contract.
midwestyankee
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Posts
- 32,076
I thought of this thread just now as I was reading this diary at dailykos. I guess I must not get out enough because I was completely unaware that such derision was coming from some on the left.
Money quote:
Speaking, of course, as someone who often was picked last for teams when I was growing up.
Money quote:
Liberals like to think of themselves as progressive thinkers but Feminist, Erica Jong, called voters that like Sarah Palin "White trash America" and Palin herself, a "redneck," whom she compared to "Harvard educated intellectuals of mixed race."
Now, if that’s what passes for forward thinking on the left, it’s no wonder Lynn Forester de Rothschild moved her support from Hillary Clinton to John McCain. It appears to be open season on the rural poor and working class. If you don't want to be labeled stupid, apparently all you need to do is check "Democrat" on the ballot and you'll escape the kind of bullying usually reserved for the kid picked last in Dodgeball.
Now, if that’s what passes for forward thinking on the left, it’s no wonder Lynn Forester de Rothschild moved her support from Hillary Clinton to John McCain. It appears to be open season on the rural poor and working class. If you don't want to be labeled stupid, apparently all you need to do is check "Democrat" on the ballot and you'll escape the kind of bullying usually reserved for the kid picked last in Dodgeball.
Speaking, of course, as someone who often was picked last for teams when I was growing up.
Homburg
Daring greatly
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
- Posts
- 13,578
Seen it many times in many places. *shrug* It's not as blatantly hateful as some of the diatribes we've all seen elsewhere, but not nice stuff. If you want an education on younger liberals (and the rest of the political spectrum, of course), visit Fark and check out various threads there in relation to politics. Ugly stuff on all sides.
The coolest appellation I've seen attached to Sarah is "snowbilly".
Me too.
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
Do you think it's partly backlash against those screaming for you to leave the country if you don't like it here?
I mean how much crap does one have to be confronted with before you decide a sock filled with poo is a good weapon against poo sock wielding assholes?
Everyone does wind up smelling like shit.
I don't especially want people with that much derision for the 20 percent of americans who live in small towns as my mouthpiece. I never liked Jong anyway, I always thought she was pretty much the poster girl for rich white angsting feminism.
As for the "climate of hostility" idea in academia, I find it laughable as I did then. Conservative students were pissed off if their comments were offensive to someone and the offended person had the BALLS to say "I'm offended by that." They don't want fair treatment in the class, they want a climate of kid glove agreement with everything and for minority and feminist students to have to phrase any offendedness like a hallmark card. Accusations of "PC" were the blunt instrument of choice.
Last edited:
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
This whole idea that anyone on the left is completely incapable of rural empathy or understanding is a wedge issue for the moron set, urban and rural. We're kind of in this together, and no one's that excited about a factory poultry farm next door, except for Tyson.
My first job out of college was a clean water canvasser, my issue, feedlot contamination of water. I've sat in living rooms in places like Belle Plaine MN. with crosses on the refrigerator and been told to give 'em hell and given 20 bucks by bluehairs I thought were going to throw me out when I knocked.
I think that was better for me than college.
My first job out of college was a clean water canvasser, my issue, feedlot contamination of water. I've sat in living rooms in places like Belle Plaine MN. with crosses on the refrigerator and been told to give 'em hell and given 20 bucks by bluehairs I thought were going to throw me out when I knocked.
I think that was better for me than college.
Last edited:
midwestyankee
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Posts
- 32,076
I really don't know what's happening here. I went to college during a very angry time (graduated in '73) and yet I do not recall a single incident of personal vindictiveness between the liberals and the conservatives on campus. Maybe, despite the anger of my generation regarding the war in Viet Nam, we were simply a more polite society then. I don't know.
I do know that some of the smartest folk I've ever met came from truly rural upbringings. In addition, in most of my first jobs I worked alongside men and women who'd not gotten past the eighth grade and that describes a few of my first best bosses as well. We knew enough to avoid talking politics most of the time, but I would have lost count within hours if I'd tried to track the number of times I heard co-workers decry the "fucking hippies." I liked them all the same.
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
That's interesting. I mean, that was one MF of a wedge, it's hard for me to fathom it not getting ugly.
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
It's also interesting to me that everyone but everyone seems comfortable talking about this abstraction of "stupid people" or "ignorant people" or "brain dead kids plugged into myspace" but the moment anyone identifies what that looks like to them, it's an act of aggression.
Either or. Either there is such a thing as stupidity and ignorance or it's just a bogey man. And I think there is. I think there are giant swaths of people voting one way or another based on soundbite or flavor of the minute. And they scare me.
I know I am many people's idea of a stupid person purely based on my political affiliations, and that's fine. I'm more attached to my right to think of them in the same fashion should I choose than I am in some great leveling of intelligence where being avid about information and TRYING to think critically one way or the other doesn't count.
Stupid isn't the guy who says "yeah, but we have no other jobs here, Tyson is a good thing."
Stupid IS the guy who says "we have no other jobs here, Tyson is a good thing" without remotely considering any other feasible solutions, because that's what mayor kickback said to say. OR the bluehair who gave me money cause she liked my haircut. It knows no political bounds.
Either or. Either there is such a thing as stupidity and ignorance or it's just a bogey man. And I think there is. I think there are giant swaths of people voting one way or another based on soundbite or flavor of the minute. And they scare me.
I know I am many people's idea of a stupid person purely based on my political affiliations, and that's fine. I'm more attached to my right to think of them in the same fashion should I choose than I am in some great leveling of intelligence where being avid about information and TRYING to think critically one way or the other doesn't count.
Stupid isn't the guy who says "yeah, but we have no other jobs here, Tyson is a good thing."
Stupid IS the guy who says "we have no other jobs here, Tyson is a good thing" without remotely considering any other feasible solutions, because that's what mayor kickback said to say. OR the bluehair who gave me money cause she liked my haircut. It knows no political bounds.
Last edited:
Homburg
Daring greatly
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
- Posts
- 13,578
Never had this problem. Then again, I was a philosophy major. Disagreement was the norm, and argument and debate was expect, healthy, and encouraged. It was the only department where arguing with your instructor was the norm, and could actually result in a better grade and more respect from your professor. So it was also one of the few curriculums where conservative thought could be expressed. Course you'd better have your shit straight, or you would get hemmed up.
That said, one of my professors was an insanely rich old white dude that made gajillions in the stock market in the 70's and 80's, retired from it, and taught philosophy. Dude was conservative in all the right places, and liberal in others. It was a blast to hear him argue with the card-carrying uber-liberal New York Jew gone Hare Krishna. Oddly enough, I became friends with the uber liberal. Kept up with him for a bit after I graduated.
JMohegan
.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2006
- Posts
- 8,226
Forum sells 'Obama waffles' with racial stereotype
WASHINGTON (AP) — Activists at a conservative political forum snapped up boxes of waffle mix depicting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama as a racial stereotype on its front and wearing Arab-like headdress on its top flap.
Values Voter Summit organizers cut off sales of Obama Waffles boxes on Saturday, saying they had not realized the boxes displayed "offensive material." The summit and the exhibit hall where the boxes were sold had been open since Thursday afternoon.
The box was meant as political satire, said Mark Whitlock and Bob DeMoss, two writers from Franklin, Tenn., who created the mix. They sold it for $10 a box from a rented booth at the summit sponsored by the lobbying arm of the Family Research Council.
David Nammo, executive director of the lobbying group FRC Action, said summit organizers were told the boxes were a parody of Obama's policy positions but had not examined them closely.
Republican Party stalwarts Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney were among speakers at the forum, which officials said drew 2,100 activists from 44 states.
While Obama Waffles takes aim at Obama's politics by poking fun at his public remarks and positions on issues, it also plays off the old image of the pancake-mix icon Aunt Jemima, which has been widely criticized as a demeaning stereotype. Obama is portrayed with popping eyes and big, thick lips as he stares at a plate of waffles and smiles broadly.
Placing Obama in Arab-like headdress recalls the false rumor that he is a follower of Islam, though he is actually a Christian.
On the back of the box, Obama is depicted in stereotypical Mexican dress, including a sombrero, above a recipe for "Open Border Fiesta Waffles" that says it can serve "4 or more illegal aliens." The recipe includes a tip: "While waiting for these zesty treats to invade your home, why not learn a foreign language?"
The novelty item also takes shots at 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry, Obama's wife, Michelle, and Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
The Obama campaign declined to comment.
Wearing white chef's aprons, Whitlock and DeMoss were doing a brisk business at noon Saturday selling the waffle mix to people crowded around their booth. Two pyramids of waffle mix boxes stood several feet high on the booth's table.
"It's the ultimate political souvenir," DeMoss told a customer.
Asked if he considered the pictures of Obama on the box to be racial stereotypes, Whitlock said: "We had some people mention that to us, but you think of Newman's Own or Emeril's — there are tons and tons of personality-branded food products on the market. So we've taken that model and, using political satire, have highlighted his policies, his position changes."
The socially conservative public policy groups American Values and Focus on the Family Action co-sponsored the summit.
Focus on the Family is a non-profit evangelical group, led by James Dobson, that actively supports creationist, anti-abortion, and anti-gay agendas. Through its daily radio programs, the group reaches 220 million listeners on over 7,000 stations in 160 countries. Dobson originally endorsed Mike Huckabee for president, and withheld endorsement for John McCain until Palin was announced as VP.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Activists at a conservative political forum snapped up boxes of waffle mix depicting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama as a racial stereotype on its front and wearing Arab-like headdress on its top flap.
Values Voter Summit organizers cut off sales of Obama Waffles boxes on Saturday, saying they had not realized the boxes displayed "offensive material." The summit and the exhibit hall where the boxes were sold had been open since Thursday afternoon.
The box was meant as political satire, said Mark Whitlock and Bob DeMoss, two writers from Franklin, Tenn., who created the mix. They sold it for $10 a box from a rented booth at the summit sponsored by the lobbying arm of the Family Research Council.
David Nammo, executive director of the lobbying group FRC Action, said summit organizers were told the boxes were a parody of Obama's policy positions but had not examined them closely.
Republican Party stalwarts Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney were among speakers at the forum, which officials said drew 2,100 activists from 44 states.
While Obama Waffles takes aim at Obama's politics by poking fun at his public remarks and positions on issues, it also plays off the old image of the pancake-mix icon Aunt Jemima, which has been widely criticized as a demeaning stereotype. Obama is portrayed with popping eyes and big, thick lips as he stares at a plate of waffles and smiles broadly.
Placing Obama in Arab-like headdress recalls the false rumor that he is a follower of Islam, though he is actually a Christian.
On the back of the box, Obama is depicted in stereotypical Mexican dress, including a sombrero, above a recipe for "Open Border Fiesta Waffles" that says it can serve "4 or more illegal aliens." The recipe includes a tip: "While waiting for these zesty treats to invade your home, why not learn a foreign language?"
The novelty item also takes shots at 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry, Obama's wife, Michelle, and Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
The Obama campaign declined to comment.
Wearing white chef's aprons, Whitlock and DeMoss were doing a brisk business at noon Saturday selling the waffle mix to people crowded around their booth. Two pyramids of waffle mix boxes stood several feet high on the booth's table.
"It's the ultimate political souvenir," DeMoss told a customer.
Asked if he considered the pictures of Obama on the box to be racial stereotypes, Whitlock said: "We had some people mention that to us, but you think of Newman's Own or Emeril's — there are tons and tons of personality-branded food products on the market. So we've taken that model and, using political satire, have highlighted his policies, his position changes."
The socially conservative public policy groups American Values and Focus on the Family Action co-sponsored the summit.
Focus on the Family is a non-profit evangelical group, led by James Dobson, that actively supports creationist, anti-abortion, and anti-gay agendas. Through its daily radio programs, the group reaches 220 million listeners on over 7,000 stations in 160 countries. Dobson originally endorsed Mike Huckabee for president, and withheld endorsement for John McCain until Palin was announced as VP.
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
Dominant_Chef
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Posts
- 1,181
I note with interest that all the budding political activists are spouting their filth from behind their rented PC monitor again...
JMohegan
.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2006
- Posts
- 8,226
Apparently you're in good company, CM. Did you see this?Yes. Which is why I self-ID as Conservative, not Republican.
"While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for. Eight years of 'conservative' government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case.
So, to paraphrase a real conservative, Ronald Reagan: I haven’t left the Republican Party. It left me."
- Christopher Buckley
Similar threads
