Shout out to Stupid- David Tyree

This months "Shout out" goes out to former New York Giants wide receiver David Tyree on the eve of the ruling on gay marriage in New York. He has entered thrown his hat into the human rights arena without thought to the consequences....

or logic....

or common sense....



But now thanks to the bible, I can look stupid with the best of em!

He released a statement in a short video earlier this month where he stated that legalizing gay marriage will inevitably lead to anarchy for the proud United States.

(They are just cleaning each other up after eating babies)





He hopes that his message will lead other Christians to defend what he and other Christians believe is a holy institution.

There are so many things wrong with his position, but this portion of his statement is what bothers me the most;

"Marriage is one of those things that is the backbone of society, so if you redefine it, it changes the way we educate our children; it changes the perception of what is good, what is right, what is just."

Wait a minute... "redefine it"?

Let's hear what people from the past thought about redefining marriage; 

"These types of marriages are abominable. If allowed they would pollute America."

"Such unions are not only unnatural, but always productive of deplorable results, such as increased effeminate behavior in the population."

"They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good in accordance with the God of nature."

What are the sources for these very quotes which are so startlingly similar to Mr Tyree's?

1960's America (Virginia and Georgia law) during the civil rights fight for the right for people to marry people of a different race.



The fight was spearheaded by Loving vs Virginia in 1967 and it was redefined to accommodate civil rights.

It was redefined earlier in the 19th century when slavery was abolished too.






Anomymous Politician

              

"Slaves cannot marry without the consent of their masters, and their marriages do not produce any of the civil effects which result from such contract."

I use these two particular examples because they apply directly to Mr Tyree. There are many inane arguments that a person can use (all of them unsubstantiated) to withhold someone's civil rights, but for a black man to state that marriage shouldn't be redefined is outrageous and should lead to an outcry of black people everywhere.

So David is right.  Redefining it DID change the way that we teach our children right from wrong.  It also taught us not to be self righteous pricks who deny others their civil rights merely because we don't like them or are unfamiliar.

Um.. David, I worked hard for these rights, stop getting up in my shit

What makes David Tyree's civil rights and those of his pretty recent ancestors more important than people of today?

Why was it ok to redefine marriage for the sake of HIS minority's equal rights but not for anyone else's?



Whoa!  I AM a civil rights activist, I just don't like gays...




Think before you speak David.

Just because you believe that something is "holy" doesn't give you the right to stomp on the civil rights of others for the sole purpose of shoving your religion down other people's throats.
And even if you DO believe that it is wrong, at least take a stance that doesn't betray all the civil rights hero's who came before you and gave you the very rights that you enjoy today.



Um, can you please not mention David's name with mine?







Think about it.



1967!



It wasn't that long ago that this same battle was being fought for you. Before you speak you should make sure that your words aren't spitting in the faces of those people who risked everything so that you could live the life you do.



Our quest for equality for all didn't end with just your interests, and it won't stop with theirs.

On a side note...

“You can't teach something that you don't have. Two men will never be able to show a woman how to be a woman."



Neither can one man teach you how to be a woman. Look out world; he may be coming for single parents too!

IT'S TRUE!  All Dad teaches us is to burp and not follow directions!

Shout Out to Stupid- Newt Gingrich

This month’s “Shout Out to Stupid” goes to republican candidate Newt Gingrich,  for his latest straw-man/ad hominem, fear mongering attack on the Democratic "Anti religious bias".

Earlier this month, he stood in front of thousands of evangelical Christians to warn them about the loss of the christian identity of America. An identity that he asserts is one of the founding principles of his country (we'll touch on that later).

"I have two grandchildren - Maggie is 11, Robert is 9, I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."

Where does the stupid even start?
Is this really a man that is potentially a presidential candidate?

ugh...

Let's start by saying this;

There is no struggle over the nature of America. A struggle is defined by two sides opposing. Each attempting to impose its own vision of victory over the other.

There is no opposition. Only Christians attempting to redefine America to fit their ideology as a "Christian Nation". America was founded by secular humanists and deists (for the most part) who believed strongly in separating the religious from the political.

And rightly so.

They also stated very clearly that the US was not founded on Christian values or any theistic ideology at all. This is clarified many times by different men amongst the founding fathers. It is simply not a matter in question by any but those who are not well read on the subject.

So it is clear that there is no struggle amongst opposing sides in this "redefinition" of America. Only Christians trying to reshape a secular country to fit their own narrow held beliefs to the exclusion of all others. So in referencing this "struggle", Gingrich is only attempting to incite the emotions of the religious right, and attempting to START such a struggle so that his America can better fit his personal beliefs.

But I digress. His stupid (or most of it) is not found in that statement.

It is found in the slippery slope argument that he passes off as fact.

"...by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American"

THIS is where his stupid lies (at least the stupid that we are talking about today. I won't mention when he supported impeaching the president for sexual misconduct while engaged in his own extra-marital affairs.)

Mr. Gingrich has engaged in a culinary/literary practice known as creating "word salad". This is where you throw a bunch of words or ideas together that will incite emotion, but have no real connection to each other or logic itself.

Secular.

Atheist.

Islamists.

Loss of American identity.

These words and ideas are emotionally charged and capable of raising the ire of a large portion of the population....

....if they suspend critical thinking (at its most basic) altogether.

The terms just don't relate!

A secular country is not the same as an atheistic country.

An atheistic country can't be dominated by religious extremists.

An Islamic country can't be secular OR atheistic.

And the “loss of identity” can't be had from any of these things.

National identity is a living thing. It changes from generation to generation and is never wrong per-se. We could say that the rise of the religious right has changed what it was to be "American"  but, although it is true that America has changed, it is not a valuable thing to say that we should wish our identity to remain stagnant. America was once a secular country. Is the someone trying to change that?

YES.

The religious right.

They have been doing this for years, starting with the Pledge of Allegiance (adding "Under God"), to the country’s motto (from "E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one) to "In God We Trust"), to the inclusion of God on US money.

But again, I digress. There is just so much wrong with what he is saying, it is hard NOT to go off on a tangent!
He is clearly trying to incite fear and hatred.
It is just as clear that he doesn't have any clear understanding of the terms that he uses.

His response to being called out on the conflated issues in his speech?

He forgot an "or" in his statement.

REALLY???

How would the inclusion of an "OR" make it any better?

They are not parallel paths. They are all diamtrically opposed paths.
Any path that we are on that might result in a more secular country, will NOT result in an islamic state, nor will it result in the abolishment of all religion to make it an "atheistic" country.

Secular is, by definition, unconcerned with god. Am atheistic country would be one that is, by and large, VERY considered in it's approach to religion. It is hard to be an atheist if you haven't considered religion at all.

Secular could be the rest of an atheistic country of course, but to say that a secular govt could result in an atheistic country is akin to saying that a republican govt will result in a conservative country.

Which considering the swing back and forth between political parties in power, I would say is a stretch to say the least.

How would a secular govt would lead to it's constituents abandoning all religious faith?

How does Islam play a part in this secular country? How does Islam end up as a result of any singular path that might also lead us to secular govts, or the abandoning of religion by its constituents?

How does the abandoning of all religion by its constituents lead to an Islamic extremist state? Further how does any path that might result in its constituents abandoning all religion have an alternate ending that it extremist islam?

The answer?

It doesn't.

It is just throwing buzz words out there. Ones that frightens uneducated voters.

But one that he equates to "enemy" more than all others.

"MUSLIM"

He is trying to intimate that Muslims (and by extension, with his logic, atheists and proponents of a secular govt) are attacking America and trying to ruin the fabric of what makes it great in their eyes.

After 9/11 it is an easy thing to say and elicit the desired response with such a statement. But it is not a true (or even logical) statement to make. There is nothing inherently evil about Muslims. Their book, the Koran, sure it's full of awful things. It's terrible and immoral and filled with hateful and evil things, but then so is another book which Gingrich would place as a very important one to North Americans.

The Bible.

We can't mention ones evils without at least referencing the others and we can't judge the character of the entire group based on it either. Just as we don't do that for Christians.

So how does the abandoning of all religion by its constituents lead to an Islamic extremist state? Further how does any path that might result in its constituents abandoning all religion have an alternate ending that is extremist Islam?

It makes absolutely no sense in any logical context.

The only way that we can make sense of it is to understand that it is a statement borne of ambition. An ambition that is best served by a country in fear.

With him as its knowing saviour.

The only result of his statement is a collective lowering of IQ of anyone who lends his words credence, and to the collective heightening of the level of paranoia and hatred towards the completely unconnected groups that he unjustly vilifies.

Those groups are those who support a secular govt (which includes many religious groups), atheists, and of course Muslims. He is trying to paint them as the destroyers of America, instead of as partners in it's future. In short he is manipulating a country that still quakes from the attacks of 9/11 and using that fear to his own ends to garner cheap political favour.

He is trying to instill not just fear, but fear and hatred.

He is trying to forget that he shares his country with those people, and that by forgetting them, he betrays a large portion of his constituency.

Does he forget that those people make up a large percentage of his voters? Maybe not a loud percentage, but certainly a large one.

Maybe it is HE, who should be careful.

For if America puts on its thinking cap to assess foolish and destructive statements like these ones, his stupidity might be exposed for all to see.

I have gone on too long on this, suffice to say that he is my "shout out" this month for his fear mongering, hatred and irrational comparisons between unrelated groups merely for his own selfish gain.

Well done Newt. Another in a long line of foolish statements and acts.

One has to wonder, how much longer will even the "new" Republicans put up with you?

Shout Out to Stupid- Bill O'Reilly

I just don't know what to say.   I have taken a week or so to think about this one because of the sheer stupidity that is involved. 

To let everyone absorb it.

It was so stupid that even his guest (David Silverman, president of "American Atheists") had to have a double take.

In an argument about whether or not "religion is a scam", O'Reilly took it upon himself to defend his God's existence.
How did he do this?
By way of a wonderful "No Spin Zone" analogy.

"Ill tell you why religion is not a scam, in my opinion, tide goes in, tide goes out, never a miscommunication." 



Never?

"Tide goes in tide goes out??"

That was Mr Silverman's response to what 'ol Bill said.  He gathered himself with a shake of the head and carried on, but it was a comical moment.

But what made me pause, FOR A WEEK, to consider this monumnetal misstep was the statement that immediately followed.

"YOU can't explain that"

Um ... are you serious?

Bill?

Tides are pretty easily explained. 

By anyone.

Well, anyone over the age of 10 anyway.

note to Mr O'Reilly- Do NOT go on this show

When Jeff Foxworthy leapfrogs over you in terms of intellectual standing at Fox

....you might be a redneck.

The fact that he kept arguing that point, as though it held water was shocking to me.  Even though he has made a career out of being more than a bit of an ass, and saying some crazy things, THIS was over and above anything that I have ever heard in a public forum. 



Hey Sarah, you two have so much in common!



Just in case you ever read this Bill, I will try to explain it to you with the expurgated version of "Tides-101". 

The moon is a REALLY big thing....

did I just lose you Bill?  Ugh, I am afraid that I just can't get into this without thinking that he will come back with "Gravity is just a theory".

On second thought, I will leave it to the intelligent people at Fox News to explain it to you.

Now I am not saying that I even agree with Mr Silverman's argument, nor his approach in saying that religion is a scam.  (A scam has to be a concious thing, not just the product of irrational thinking)  I actually think that he was being a bit of an ass himself and only trying to ruffle feathers and get some national attention and I think that Bill O'Rielly was right to say that he (Mr Silverman) was insulting people and he wondered what he sought to gain by it.

But O'Reilly's response let him off the hook with the sheer stupidity of its content.  He took all the attention off the actual topic of discussion and moved it into the realm of absolute incredulity over the magnitude of idiocy it took to utter that statement.

The clown took the stage and stole the night.

To your credit Bill, you jumped at the chance to defend your beliefs, you displayed a take no prisoners attitude and certainly thought you were helping when you joined the fray against something you found pretty offensive. 

And believe it or not, I thought, for once, you had a salient point.

But sadly, in order to defend your beliefs, you had to open your mouth, and now I am pretty sure that even God wishes that you had stayed out of it.

Seriously Bill, can you downplay our relationship a bit?

For those of you who would like to watch the infamous stupidity, here is the link (if you wish to skip the interview and get right to the stupid, go directly to 1:55 in the video)

Peace

Shout out to Stupid-Clint McCance

This month’s "Shout Out" goes out to Arkansas School Board member Clint McCance and his public Facebook rant about homosexuals on Spirit day.

For those of you who don't know about Spirit Day, it was a day set aside for support of homosexuals who are victim to the bullying that leads to depression and suicide.  The support came in the form of wearing purple for the day, leading some of us to call it "Purple Day".

Here is his original post on his Facebook status;

"Seriously, they want me to wear purple because five queers committed suicide. The only way im wearin it for them is if they all commit suicide. I cant believe the people of this world have gotten this stupid. We aer {sic} honoring the fact that they sinned and killed themselves because of their sin. REALLY PEOPLE."

This was his response to people showing empathy for the victims of hatred.

This was his response to the plights of people who had fallen to the depths of despair because of the hatred they face each day that they end their lives..

This was his response to seeing people wear purple.

My mother used to say to me "When someone shows you who they are. Believe them"

Don’t make excuses, don’t apologize, don’t let their “I’m sorry’s” make you forget who they really are.

He couldn't just stay silent in his hatred of people who are different; he felt it necessary to show us all who he was.

This is a person who represents the interests of our children (some of whom may belong to the group about whom he expresses such vile intent).  A public official who feels that an entire segment of our population should kill themselves because they don't deny who they are so that they can conform to his beliefs can't possibly feel that he is sentinel to the interests of all his constituents.  

He just can't.

Not only does he proclaim to all who will listen (his settings are private, but like many of us his "friends" list is larger than just a cozy few)  that he would actually celebrate if all the "queers" would kill themselves, 

            

 "The only way im wearin it (purple) for them is if they ALL commit suicide"

but he actually BLAMES them for their own plight and pain.  

        

"They sinned and killed themselves because of their sin"

Remember, this is the attitude of a public and elected official.  Instead of sounding like the intelligent elected official he comes off sounding like every time he speaks there should be the banjo from the movie “Deliverance” playing in the background. 

Certainly not the empathic and understanding feelings of anyone I want having any effect on my child’s education or emotional development. 

Think that he can't get any more stupid? 

Any more hateful? 

Any more ridiculous?

I hope not, because you would think wrong.

       

  "I would disown my kids they were gay. They will not be welcome at my home or in my vicinity. I will absolutely run them off"

So much for unconditional love!

His hatred knows no bounds and his concern about how people have sex and who they have sex with is more important to him than even his children are!

His love for his children has limits, and they come in the form of who they want to love.  The very thing that most parents wish for their children is what he puts limits on.  I wish that my son would grow up to find the love of his life, and be happy basking in a healthy relationship. 

That is my fondest wish.

If it happens to be a man, then I am ok with that.

Let me rephrase, I don’t have a right to be “Ok” with it or not, just to be happy for him. 

But THIS man doesn’t care about that.  He will throw his concern for his own children out the window the very moment that he hears that they love someone of whom he doesn’t approve. 

If he will throw his OWN children away so easily, how easily will he dump on the rights of children that he DIDN’T bear?

I know that I want the people whom I trust with my son's future to have HIS interests and rights in mind, and not with conditions that ride on THEIR beliefs but on the statutes of law and the wishes of the parents.

This man has shouted out his stupidity to all of us, and told us everything we need to know about him….

…now it’s our job to believe him. 

Shout out to Stupid-Kerry Bensemann

This month's "Shout" goes out to food bank manager Kerry Bensemann for making his church membership drive more important than the charity that he is supposed to enable.

One week ago Thursday they could not deliver many of the 120 meal orders that hungry and underprivileged townsfolk were waiting for. The same thing happened again Friday, as they found themselves understaffed.

But were they really?

The warehouse that stored the food had plenty of workers willing to help, and they even had people volunteer from the community, so why did Mr Bensemann feel he was understaffed?


Because they weren't Christians.

"I know it sounds really, really stupid, but you've got to understand how we're set up"

 They have a policy against non-Christians delivering the food because the aim is to increase church involvement, and having non-religious people deliver the food "defeats the purpose".

Really?

It defeats the purpose?  I thought the purpose was to feed the needy.

Apparently if the church doesn't benefit, it is OK to let people starve.


So regardless of the fact that many of his needy speak openly about how they are forced to pray before they are allowed to accept the food, or how other charities accuse "0800 Hungry Food Bank" of hogging all the food resources, this food sits in the warehouse.

Piling up until someone more pious can deliver it.

If you think that the idea of running a food bank just to proselytize to people who are too desperate to say no distasteful, then you are not alone.

How does he justify letting people go hungry while willing people are volunteering to help deliver it?

"It's like sending someone who plays ping-pong out to play for the All Blacks (New Zealand Rugby team)."

 Really?

Because I thought it was more like giving much needed food to the hungry.  I don't think that the hungry care about whose hands are kind enough to hand it to them.

Kerry does though.

And until his Church gets more involved, nothing else matters.

Not the food that is sitting in his warehouse, not any higher moral purpose or charitable action, and most certainly not the hungry people who call in day after day for help that he promises to give them.

In the 0800 Hungry Food Bank, the needy take a backseat to church membership.

You are right Mr Bensemann, it DOES sound stupid.


Original story- Here

This Week's "Shout out to Stupid"-June 22nd, 2010

This week’s “shout” goes out to Sen Robert Adley and his part in the Louisiana “Statewide Day of Prayer for Louisiana and the population and region surrounding the Gulf of Mexico”.

Don’t bother going back to read that again, you read it right. The Louisiana legislature wasted valuable legislative and problem solving time with proposing, discussing and voting on a supernatural solution to the BP oil leak.
(Not to mention the time that was taken drafting and redrafting a 2 page document justifying and mandating it;
http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=718485)

Before we even get to the meat of the absurdity of this state mandated day of prayer, what ever happened to the constitutional interpretation (Thomas Jefferson’s) of separation of church and state?

Have we really gotten so lax in our legislative approach that we now set aside efforts for finding real solutions and delve into supernatural invocations for help?

Have we gotten so politically correct that we can’t just accept the speaker summarily dismissing this sort of talk as something best left to the discretion of individuals and off the discussion table?

Have theists gotten so arrogant in their belief that they really feel it is representative of their people and that it has a place in the politics of a nation?

Have politicians gotten so corrupt as to use people’s religious beliefs for cheap political gain during times of crisis to the detriment of the nation?

The answer to all of these questions is a depressing “Yes!”

Disgusting.

Sen Adley, You should be ashamed of yourself. As an evangelical you may dismiss my secular deprecation of your actions, even though I would stand in defense of your right to pray.
But to waste valuable time discussing it when you have a crisis on your hands is absolutely disgusting, immoral, and a betrayal to all those who depend on you.
No one is stopping you, nor anyone who believes such things from invoking prayer to convince themselves that they are assisting the efforts for clean up.
No one needs a “a Statewide Day of Prayer” to “provide each of us with a powerful
opportunity to humble ourselves before our Almighty God” because that opportunity already exists each and every day.
There is nothing that can be accomplished by such a call, because prayer, (if it works at all (and the evidence says that it does not)) isn’t a mandate, nor a date, nor more powerful if many people are coming together in it.
Each prayer is personal, according to you, and considered equally, in your belief, by god.
So unless your belief is that God doesn’t care about individual prayer, or that he gives greater credence to prayers said in unison, or even that he gives preference to those said on days set aside for that purpose, then what you have done is a cheap political stunt to garner attention by setting aside responsibilities and focusing on grandstanding for a time.

Disgusting.

It is a disgusting appeal for popularity, a cheap political tactic, and an unethical diversion from the political ideals that you took an oath to uphold as a member of office.

You saw an opportunity and you took it. Personal gain was there, ripe for the taking and you wasted no time snatching it up and snatching your opportunity to take ownership of the morality that is implied in prayer with many people.

People desperate for a solution look to you, and you played on that desperation by manipulating perceptions of your dedication by calling to their beliefs instead of calling for a solution.
If a solution isn’t found in the coming weeks, will we be smelling burnt animal flesh from the legislature?
Or communal chanting?
Maybe voodoo?

Give us a break! No one believes that you have done any good with your suggestion of a day of prayer if they really think about it.


Sir, people will pray for solutions with or without your governmental day of prayer. So setting aside our disagreements on the efficacy of prayer, the only person who can benefit from this outlandish legislation is you. You wanted to gain favour, and now you have it from those who are desperate for ANY solution. They plead for help and you provided only words.

Selfish.

Unchristian (well, we may disagree about THAT too)

Unethical

In a word….

Disgusting.