.This blog is for my various interests, such as bicycling, karaoke, clean living, internet memes, video games, roleplaying games, progressive politics, humor, and futurism.
Spinster Aunt on Komen Khaos
Man do I love Spinster Aunt’s screeds on the excellent I Blame the Patriarchy. Today’s post “Komen Sucks, Pt. 47” is no exception.
“Listen everyone, Komen doesn’t prevent cancer, and Komen doesn’t pay for breast cancer treatment. It “raises awareness” through “early detection” and funds “research” focused on pharmaceutical cures for cancers that many of Komen’s corporate sponsors might likely have a hand in causing in the first place.”
Return your pink Kitchen-Aids! Un-dye the City Hall foundation! Rouge pink nipples until they are as red as the necks and political beliefs of Komen’s CEO Nancy Brinker, Karen Handel and Jane Abraham!
Oh, boy, have I missed Twisty.
Her conclusion is killer:
“Komen is the most visible brand in the whole cancer industrial complex. It disguises itself as some big altruistic community effort for women’s health, but it’s really just another conservative, honky organization with a misogynist political agenda. A marketing juggernaut instrumental in raking in piles of cash for and cleansing the tarnished images of its evil corporate sponsors, Komen has successfully brainwashed millions to believe that the “problem” of women’s health can be solved by licking yogurt lids.”
(via stfuconservatives)
Gretchen Carlsson, village idiot of Fox and Friends, attempting to explain why the poor in America should pay even more in taxes, when they can barely pay their taxes now.
Can she just get off her high horse and her head out of her butt? Not everyone in America is a millionaire. Is she that censored and oblivious from real American reality?
People are losing their homes, struggling to pay their bills, having a hard time and wondering when the next time they eat is. And Retching and her delusional Fox News cohorts think that 47% of Americans don’t pay any taxes? They want the dirt poor to pay more?
What a bunch of greedy stuck-up bastards!
How about they switch places with the poor for a change? Then maybe they would start reporting the news the way it is actually happening.
(via thepoliticalfreakshow)
I still can’t believe they’re bringing out that old chestnut of bullshit and asshattery. 47% of Americans don’t pay federal income tax… they pay federal payroll tax, on their income. Which is paid at the exact same rate, through a different channel. Also, Social Security taxes are disproportionately heavy on the 99%, since they are capped. So, when RNCResearch says that the average tax rate in America is 11%, they neglect to point out the extra 20% that I pay, and most of you pay, and that Mitt Romney only paid on $110,000 dollars, which cost him $13,652.40. In Mitt Romney terms, peanuts. Oh, and Medicare tax works the same way. So, here’s the truth to remember: Every statistic, fact, and figure that you hear from Fox News, Pew Research, or the Republican National Convention, has been doctored into a lie, spun into a lie, cherry-picked into a lie, or it started out as a completely fabricated lie.
I’m looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge “facts” that are asserted by newsmakers they write about.
Another example: on the campaign trail, Mitt Romney often says President Obama has made speeches “apologizing for America,” a phrase to which Paul Krugman objected in a December 23 column arguing that politics has advanced to the “post-truth” stage.
As an Op-Ed columnist, Mr. Krugman clearly has the freedom to call out what he thinks is a lie. My question for readers is: should news reporters do the same?
If so, then perhaps the next time Mr. Romney says the president has a habit of apologizing for his country, the reporter should insert a paragraph saying, more or less:
“The president has never used the word ‘apologize’ in a speech about U.S. policy or history. Any assertion that he has apologized for U.S. actions rests on a misleading interpretation of the president’s words.”
On the one hand, I’m glad to see that someone at the Times is at long last considering the importance of reporters identifying and calling out lies. I can’t help but wonder how different the last 12 years would have been if they’d, you know, done their jobs and actually informed their readers, instead of letting lies from anonymous sources go unchallenged.
On the other hand, it’s appalling to me that this is even a question that needs to be asked. Isn’t seeking the truth and informing readers in the fucking job description?