Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Monday, December 20, 2010
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Monday, December 13, 2010
Is Evolution a fact or a theory?
Is Evolution a fact or a theory?
The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world. Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.
Why isn't evolution called a law?
Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena. For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe what will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain why these events occur. Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. But theories do not develop into laws with the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the goal of science.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
why talk about god/christians if we dont believe in god...
- We don’t believe in God, but we certainly believe in Christians. They’re everywhere, it seems. And while most of them are harmless, a number of them are annoying… or worse. Much worse. They bomb abortion clinics. They do their best to hinder the advancement of science and the arts. They elect candidates based not on their competency, but on whether “he prays” (and says so more often than his opponent). They try to interfere — and get laws to do it — in the sexual lives of consenting adults. They ban stem cell research and contraceptives, thus condemning millions around the world to disease and suffering, because of books written by primitive desert nomads thousands of years ago. So, yes, Christians are a problem.
- Wouldn’t you try to help someone descending into alcoholism? Wouldn’t you care if you saw someone destroying their lives because of booze? Well, in a way, religion is like alcoholism. It attacks the mind, the power of reasoning, it makes people believe in absurd things. It destroys lives – both of the alcoholic / believer, and often those of their family, too. So it’s natural that some of us care — even about strangers. We don’t think we’ll ever “unconvert” fundamentalists; by definition, they’ve long stopped thinking about their belief critically — indeed, they believe that doing so would be a sin. But some people may be at a “crossroads”, so to speak. They may believe simply because they’ve never thought about it; everyone around them believes unquestioningly, and they’ve never even heard of an alternative. So maybe an atheist can make a difference.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
It is apparent that you have gotten your misinformation about Darwin from lying creationist web sites and books.
In contrast to what most of the Christians believed at that time, Darwin was quite progressive in his views on race, and he abhorred those who mistreated and enslaved the non-white races. He never thought they were subhuman. At the time that Darwin was developing his theory of evolution, Christians justified their enslavement of blacks on both the Bible and their belief that blacks were subhuman. So don't disparage Darwin because of the lies you find in creationist web sites and books.
Here is what Darwin said about the races in his Descent:
"Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded n e g r o with whom I happened once to be intimate."
Does that sound like someone who believed that blacks are inferior?
Carefully read what he subsequently went on to say"
"The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridæ—between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the n e g r o or Australian and the gorilla."
Considering that Darwin had said the similarities in intellect between whites and other races were insignificant, his remark about the separation between the N e g r o or Australian and the gorilla was certainly referring to the primitive way they were living in the wild in contrast to that of those who lived in a "civilized state," rather than to any perceived similarity to apes.
And he was not advocating the extermination of the N e g r o e s. He was making an observation of what could happen as a result the the Caucasian's actions toward them.
Again, since at that time most Christians believed that N e g r o e s were subhuman or intellectually deficient, you have no business singling out Darwin by attributing him with your erroneously perceived racism.
The following shows Darwin's attitude towards the enslavement of n e g r o e s in contrast with the Christian norm of the time.
"While strolling about the town Darwin was disgusted at the sight of black slaves, and upon returning to the Beagle he got into a big quarrel with Capt. FitzRoy about the ethics of treating humans as property. FitzRoy [who was a devout Christian] flew into a temper and forbid Darwin to share his dinner table with him ever again. After a short cooling off period Capt. FitzRoy apologized to Darwin and his privilege to dine with him was restored.
" 'We had several quarrels; for when out of temper he [FitzRoy] was utterly unreasonable. For instance, early in the voyage at Bahia in Brazil he defended and praised slavery, which I abominated, and told me that he just visited a great slave-owner, who had called up many of his slaves and asked them whether they were happy, and whether they wished to be free, and all answered 'No.' I then asked him, perhaps with a sneer, whether he thought that the answers of slaves in the presence of their master was worth anything. This made him excessively angry ...'"
-- Charles Darwin [11]
http://www.aboutdarwin.com/voyage/voyage…
Now aren't you ashamed of yourself for defaming Darwin by passing on creationist lies? He was a better man than most Christians of the time.
I submit that you know nothing of either evolution or Darwin except the lies you find in creationist web sites and books.
Added:
"It is quite obvious that Darwin was not commenting on cultural differences, but supposed biological difference that he claimed to observe (that supposedly blacks were biologically primitive as compared to whites)."
Reread my excerpts from his works. I quote them again since you apparently failed to grasp what he said.
"Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded n e g r o with whom I happened once to be intimate."
Does that sound like someone who believed that blacks are inferior?
You have absolutely no basis in saying that Darwin held that blacks were biologically primitive as compared to whites. All you are doing is trying to smear evolutionary theory by smearing Darwin.
That, coupled with Darwin's hatred of slavery in contrast with the Christian norm of the time makes your whole argument pitiful and disgusting.
Added:
"Yes. Darwin is quoted saying that whites are the most evolved, while the other races are less evolved. He said that blacks were only slightly evolved over gorillas. Darwin predicted that the other races would soon "be exterminated" leaving a larger evolutionary gap between the white races and the gorillas. These words of Darwin are quite racist and evil."
It is apparent that your mind has been raped by your having read creationist anti-evolution propaganda. Darwin was not condoning the future extermination of blacks. He was making a prediction based on his observations of what happened when the Christian colonialists of his day conquered the uncivilized peoples.
Darwin: "Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature...The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded n e g r o with whom I happened once to be intimate."
Does that sound like Darwin thought blacks are only slightly evolved over gorillas?
I challenge you to provide a single quote from Darwin's works saying that.
Your mind has been so twisted by the anti-evolution propaganda you have been reading you cannot even think straight.
In contrast to what most of the Christians believed at that time, Darwin was quite progressive in his views on race, and he abhorred those who mistreated and enslaved the non-white races. He never thought they were subhuman. At the time that Darwin was developing his theory of evolution, Christians justified their enslavement of blacks on both the Bible and their belief that blacks were subhuman. So don't disparage Darwin because of the lies you find in creationist web sites and books.
Here is what Darwin said about the races in his Descent:
"Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded n e g r o with whom I happened once to be intimate."
Does that sound like someone who believed that blacks are inferior?
Carefully read what he subsequently went on to say"
"The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridæ—between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the n e g r o or Australian and the gorilla."
Considering that Darwin had said the similarities in intellect between whites and other races were insignificant, his remark about the separation between the N e g r o or Australian and the gorilla was certainly referring to the primitive way they were living in the wild in contrast to that of those who lived in a "civilized state," rather than to any perceived similarity to apes.
And he was not advocating the extermination of the N e g r o e s. He was making an observation of what could happen as a result the the Caucasian's actions toward them.
Again, since at that time most Christians believed that N e g r o e s were subhuman or intellectually deficient, you have no business singling out Darwin by attributing him with your erroneously perceived racism.
The following shows Darwin's attitude towards the enslavement of n e g r o e s in contrast with the Christian norm of the time.
"While strolling about the town Darwin was disgusted at the sight of black slaves, and upon returning to the Beagle he got into a big quarrel with Capt. FitzRoy about the ethics of treating humans as property. FitzRoy [who was a devout Christian] flew into a temper and forbid Darwin to share his dinner table with him ever again. After a short cooling off period Capt. FitzRoy apologized to Darwin and his privilege to dine with him was restored.
" 'We had several quarrels; for when out of temper he [FitzRoy] was utterly unreasonable. For instance, early in the voyage at Bahia in Brazil he defended and praised slavery, which I abominated, and told me that he just visited a great slave-owner, who had called up many of his slaves and asked them whether they were happy, and whether they wished to be free, and all answered 'No.' I then asked him, perhaps with a sneer, whether he thought that the answers of slaves in the presence of their master was worth anything. This made him excessively angry ...'"
-- Charles Darwin [11]
http://www.aboutdarwin.com/voyage/voyage…
Now aren't you ashamed of yourself for defaming Darwin by passing on creationist lies? He was a better man than most Christians of the time.
I submit that you know nothing of either evolution or Darwin except the lies you find in creationist web sites and books.
Added:
"It is quite obvious that Darwin was not commenting on cultural differences, but supposed biological difference that he claimed to observe (that supposedly blacks were biologically primitive as compared to whites)."
Reread my excerpts from his works. I quote them again since you apparently failed to grasp what he said.
"Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded n e g r o with whom I happened once to be intimate."
Does that sound like someone who believed that blacks are inferior?
You have absolutely no basis in saying that Darwin held that blacks were biologically primitive as compared to whites. All you are doing is trying to smear evolutionary theory by smearing Darwin.
That, coupled with Darwin's hatred of slavery in contrast with the Christian norm of the time makes your whole argument pitiful and disgusting.
Added:
"Yes. Darwin is quoted saying that whites are the most evolved, while the other races are less evolved. He said that blacks were only slightly evolved over gorillas. Darwin predicted that the other races would soon "be exterminated" leaving a larger evolutionary gap between the white races and the gorillas. These words of Darwin are quite racist and evil."
It is apparent that your mind has been raped by your having read creationist anti-evolution propaganda. Darwin was not condoning the future extermination of blacks. He was making a prediction based on his observations of what happened when the Christian colonialists of his day conquered the uncivilized peoples.
Darwin: "Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature...The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded n e g r o with whom I happened once to be intimate."
Does that sound like Darwin thought blacks are only slightly evolved over gorillas?
I challenge you to provide a single quote from Darwin's works saying that.
Your mind has been so twisted by the anti-evolution propaganda you have been reading you cannot even think straight.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
becoming an atheist
Becoming an Atheist is the single most rational sane thing that ever happened to me.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Police: Pastor Anthony Hopkins Murdered Wife, Hid Body in Freezer
An Alabama preacher has been arrested on murder charges after police found his wife’s body in his home freezer. Small-time evangelist Anthony Hopkins was arrested Monday night at a revival in Jackson.
Authorities searched Hopkins’ home after a female relative contacted police claiming the 37-year-old had repeatedly raped her over a period of time. The body of Atletha Hopkins was found in the home freezer during the search. Witnesses say Hopkins had been telling everyone that his wife died in childbirth.
Arletha, a mother of 8, had been missing for 3 years but no one reported her disappearance. The Hopkins had six children together and Arletha has two from another relationship. The children who lived with Hopkins ranged in age from 3 to 19 and are now in custody of the Department of Human Resources.
Hopkins is being held in a Mobile prison awaiting a bond hearing.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Monday, September 13, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Monday, September 6, 2010
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Saturday, September 4, 2010
God did not create the universe
LONDON, England (CNN) -- God did not create the universe, world-famous physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book that aims to banish a divine creator from physics.
Hawking says in his book "The Grand Design" that, given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing," according to an excerpt published Thursday in The Times of London.
"Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," he writes in the excerpt.
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going," he writes.
His book -- as the title suggests -- is an attempt to answer "the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything," he writes, quoting Douglas Adams' cult science fiction romp, "The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy."
It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going.
--Stephen Hawking
RELATED TOPICS
* Stephen Hawking
His answer is "M-theory," which, he says, posits 11 space-time dimensions, "vibrating strings, ... point particles, two-dimensional membranes, three-dimensional blobs and other objects that are more difficult to picture and occupy even more dimensions of space." He doesn't explain much of that in the excerpt, which is the introduction to the book.
But he says he understands the feeling of the great English scientist Isaac Newton that God did "create" and "conserve" order in the universe.
It was the discovery of other solar systems outside our own, in 1992, that undercut a key idea of Newton's -- that our world was so uniquely designed to be comfortable for human life that some divine creator must have been responsible.
But, Hawking argues, if there are untold numbers of planets in the galaxy, it's less remarkable that there's one with conditions for human life.
And, indeed, he argues, any form of intelligent life that evolves anywhere will automatically find that it lives somewhere suitable for it.
From there he introduces the idea of multiple universes, saying that if there are many universes, one will have laws of physics like ours -- and in such a universe, something not only can, but must, arise from nothing.
Therefore, he concludes, there's no need for God to explain it.
But some of Hawking's Cambridge colleagues said the physicist has missed the point.
"The 'god' that Stephen Hawking is trying to debunk is not the creator God of the Abrahamic faiths who really is the ultimate explanation for why there is something rather than nothing," said Denis Alexander.
"Hawking's god is a god-of-the-gaps used to plug present gaps in our scientific knowledge.
"Science provides us with a wonderful narrative as to how [existence] may happen, but theology addresses the meaning of the narrative," said Alexander, director of The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion.
And Fraser Watts, an Anglican priest and Cambridge expert in the history of science, said that it's not the existence of the universe that proves the existence of God.
But, he said, "a creator God provides a reasonable and credible explanation of why there is a universe, and ... it is somewhat more likely that there is a God than that there is not. That view is not undermined by what Hawking has said."
Hawking's book will be published on September 7 in the United States and September 9 in the United Kingdom.
Hawking says in his book "The Grand Design" that, given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing," according to an excerpt published Thursday in The Times of London.
"Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," he writes in the excerpt.
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going," he writes.
His book -- as the title suggests -- is an attempt to answer "the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything," he writes, quoting Douglas Adams' cult science fiction romp, "The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy."
It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going.
--Stephen Hawking
RELATED TOPICS
* Stephen Hawking
His answer is "M-theory," which, he says, posits 11 space-time dimensions, "vibrating strings, ... point particles, two-dimensional membranes, three-dimensional blobs and other objects that are more difficult to picture and occupy even more dimensions of space." He doesn't explain much of that in the excerpt, which is the introduction to the book.
But he says he understands the feeling of the great English scientist Isaac Newton that God did "create" and "conserve" order in the universe.
It was the discovery of other solar systems outside our own, in 1992, that undercut a key idea of Newton's -- that our world was so uniquely designed to be comfortable for human life that some divine creator must have been responsible.
But, Hawking argues, if there are untold numbers of planets in the galaxy, it's less remarkable that there's one with conditions for human life.
And, indeed, he argues, any form of intelligent life that evolves anywhere will automatically find that it lives somewhere suitable for it.
From there he introduces the idea of multiple universes, saying that if there are many universes, one will have laws of physics like ours -- and in such a universe, something not only can, but must, arise from nothing.
Therefore, he concludes, there's no need for God to explain it.
But some of Hawking's Cambridge colleagues said the physicist has missed the point.
"The 'god' that Stephen Hawking is trying to debunk is not the creator God of the Abrahamic faiths who really is the ultimate explanation for why there is something rather than nothing," said Denis Alexander.
"Hawking's god is a god-of-the-gaps used to plug present gaps in our scientific knowledge.
"Science provides us with a wonderful narrative as to how [existence] may happen, but theology addresses the meaning of the narrative," said Alexander, director of The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion.
And Fraser Watts, an Anglican priest and Cambridge expert in the history of science, said that it's not the existence of the universe that proves the existence of God.
But, he said, "a creator God provides a reasonable and credible explanation of why there is a universe, and ... it is somewhat more likely that there is a God than that there is not. That view is not undermined by what Hawking has said."
Hawking's book will be published on September 7 in the United States and September 9 in the United Kingdom.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Sunday, August 22, 2010
"sin" is a concept invented by christians for christians!! as an atheist I have no notion of sin. sin just sounds very silly to me
Christ DIDN'T die for my sins, My mistakes are my own & 100% nothing to do with God or Jesus. STOP!! laying your Christian guilt trip on me. Keep your guilt trip to yourself & deal with it.
when you understand why you dismiss other possible gods you'll understand why i dismiss yours
Christ DIDN'T die for my sins, My mistakes are my own & 100% nothing to do with God or Jesus. STOP!! laying your Christian guilt trip on me. Keep your guilt trip to yourself & deal with it.
when you understand why you dismiss other possible gods you'll understand why i dismiss yours
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Israeli PM Netanyahu's unguarded talk on video: How I destroyed the Oslo Accords, and how easily Americans are manipulated
One of the most important videos you've never seen is this one, in which Benjamin Netanyahu
, 9 years ago -- thinking there is no record -- explains his actually strategy to inflict pain on the Palestinians. He also describes how easy it is to manipulate the US, and how he made sure that the Oslo Accords would mean nothing.
First he says that the plan for the Palestinians is to:
What is clear from this is that Netanyahu at least, and probably the majority of Israel's leadership (since they followed the strategy he outlines), never sincerely intended to fulfill the Oslo Accords. Their strategy for dealing with the Palestinians was to inflict maximum pain, in an attempt to break the Palestinians so they would accept any possible terms.
And finally, it's remarkable that Netanyahu thinks there is nothing Israel could do which would ever really make America turn on it: nothing which would ever make America not support it. The idea that America would stop Israel from smashing the Palestinians is laughable to him.
The question, nine years later, is whether this is still true. Certainly it is true that when Israel attacked ships in international waters the US protected Israel. And it is also apparently the case that the Israeli military were to overfly Iraq to attack Iran, U.S. air command is not to shoot them down.
I suggest watching the entire video, and drawing your own conclusions. For myself, I suggest that it is in neither Israel's best interests nor America's for America to be so unwilling to stand up to Israel, and for Israel's Prime Minister to have so little respect -- indeed, such open contempt -- for the nation which is Israel's primary ally.
, 9 years ago -- thinking there is no record -- explains his actually strategy to inflict pain on the Palestinians. He also describes how easy it is to manipulate the US, and how he made sure that the Oslo Accords would mean nothing.First he says that the plan for the Palestinians is to:
hit them hard. Not just one hit... but many painful [hits], so that the price will be unbearable. The price is not unbearable, now. A total assault on the Palestinian Authority. To bring them to a state of panic that everything is collapsing ... fear that everything will collapse... this is what we'll bring them to...The woman Natanyahu is speaking to wonders if the world won't object to what Israel is doing to the occupied Palestinians (she uses the word occupiers herself. He says the world will say nothing, just that Israel is defending itself. As for the US...
“I know what America is. America is a thing that can be easily moved, moved in the right direction... Let's suppose that they [the Americans] will say something [i.e. to us Israelis] ... so they say it...” [i.e. so what?]He then moves on to deal with the Oslo Accords. Under Oslo, Israel was to give back land in three phases. However, there was a loophole: if there were settlements or military bases, that land didn't have to be given back. So the question is, who defines what is a settlement or military site?
I received a letter – to me and to Arafat, at the same time ... which said that Israel, and only Israel, would be the one to define what those are, the location of those military sites and their size. Now, they did not want to give me that letter, so I did not give the Hebron agreement. I stopped the government meeting, I said: "I'm not signing." Only when the letter came, in the course of the meeting, to me and to Arafat, only then did I sign the Hebron agreement, or rather, ratify it. It had already been signed. Why does this matter? Because at that moment I actually stopped the Oslo accord.The woman talking to Netanyahu also states that Oslo meant Israel's suicide—Israel's destruction. And Netanyahu seems to agree.
What is clear from this is that Netanyahu at least, and probably the majority of Israel's leadership (since they followed the strategy he outlines), never sincerely intended to fulfill the Oslo Accords. Their strategy for dealing with the Palestinians was to inflict maximum pain, in an attempt to break the Palestinians so they would accept any possible terms.
And finally, it's remarkable that Netanyahu thinks there is nothing Israel could do which would ever really make America turn on it: nothing which would ever make America not support it. The idea that America would stop Israel from smashing the Palestinians is laughable to him.
The question, nine years later, is whether this is still true. Certainly it is true that when Israel attacked ships in international waters the US protected Israel. And it is also apparently the case that the Israeli military were to overfly Iraq to attack Iran, U.S. air command is not to shoot them down.
I suggest watching the entire video, and drawing your own conclusions. For myself, I suggest that it is in neither Israel's best interests nor America's for America to be so unwilling to stand up to Israel, and for Israel's Prime Minister to have so little respect -- indeed, such open contempt -- for the nation which is Israel's primary ally.
Burn The Confederate Flag Day
Burn The Confederate Flag Day
http://sites.google.com/site/burnrebelflagday/
Burn the Confederate Flag Day is a protest against the right's exploitation of racial prejudice for political gain. We urge you to burn the Confederate flag, a long-time symbol of racial hatred, on Sept 12, the date when the racially-divisive Tea Party holds its annual hate fest.
Ways to get involved:
* Host a flag-burning party on Sept. 12.
o Tell us where and when you're holding it, and we'll publish a list of events.
o Send us photos of the event. We'll post them here.
o Upload a video of the event onto YouTube. We'll embed it or link to it.
* Let them know we're watching. Dress up like a clown and take a partially burned flag to a local tea party event (Don't burn a flag at the event unless local laws allow it.)
* Spread the word via Facebook (here's our Facebook group), Twitter, and other social media.
* Submit your own ideas, below in the comments. We'll use them to update this list.
* Place a banner on your blog, website, or social media profile. Here are a couple of examples you can use:
http://sites.google.com/site/burnrebelflagday/Burn the Confederate Flag Day is a protest against the right's exploitation of racial prejudice for political gain. We urge you to burn the Confederate flag, a long-time symbol of racial hatred, on Sept 12, the date when the racially-divisive Tea Party holds its annual hate fest.
Ways to get involved:
* Host a flag-burning party on Sept. 12.
o Tell us where and when you're holding it, and we'll publish a list of events.
o Send us photos of the event. We'll post them here.
o Upload a video of the event onto YouTube. We'll embed it or link to it.
* Let them know we're watching. Dress up like a clown and take a partially burned flag to a local tea party event (Don't burn a flag at the event unless local laws allow it.)
* Spread the word via Facebook (here's our Facebook group), Twitter, and other social media.
* Submit your own ideas, below in the comments. We'll use them to update this list.
* Place a banner on your blog, website, or social media profile. Here are a couple of examples you can use:
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Conservative Bloggers Select The 25 Worst Figures In American History
There they go again...
The blog Right Wing News asked "more than a hundred bloggers" who they thought were the worst people in American history. The results may shock you! Or maybe not. [..]
This question was put out to over 100 crazies with internet connections:
Out of all the gangsters, serial killers, mass murderers, incompetent & crooked politicians, spies, traitors, and ultra left-wing kooks in all of American history — have you ever wondered who the worst of the worst was?"
101 Dead Armadillos, Argghhhh!, Basil's Blog, Cold Fury, Conservative Compendium, The Dana Show, DANEgerus Weblog, Dodgeblogium, Cara Ellison, Exurban League, Fausta's Blog, Freeman Hunt, GraniteGrok, House of Eratosthenes, Infidels Are Cool, IMAO, Jordan Woodward, Moe Lane, Mean Ol' Meany, The Liberal Heretics, Midnight Blue, Pirate's Cove, Nice Deb, Pundit Boy, Professor Bainbridge, Pursuing Holiness.com, Liz Mair, Moonbattery, mountaineer musings, No Oil For Pacifists, No Runny Eggs, Right View from the Left Coast, Russ. Just Russ, Say Anything, Don Singleton, The TrogloPundit, The Underground Conservative, This Ain't Hell, The Virtuous Republic, Vox Popoli, WILLisms, Wintery knight, YidwithLid
All bloggers were allowed to make anywhere from 1-20 selections. Rank was determined simply by the number of votes received. Also, it's worth keeping in mind that this is a fairly conservative group of bloggers and their selections reflected that. Also, I made a decision to combine the votes given to the Rosenbergs and Julius Rosenberg into one group since most people associate the two of them together. Some people may disagree with that decision, but I thought it was the best way to go.
Well, that's enough about the rules -- without further ado, the worst figures in American history are as follows (with the number of votes following each selection)...
[..]Here are the results, from 43 bloggers who responded:
23) Saul Alinsky (7)
23) Bill Clinton (7)
23) Hillary Clinton (7)
19) Michael Moore (7)
19) George Soros (8)
19) Alger Hiss (8)
19) Al Sharpton (8)
13) Al Gore (9)
13) Noam Chomsky (9)
13) Richard Nixon (9)
13) Jane Fonda (9)
13) Harry Reid (9)
13) Nancy Pelosi (9)
11) John Wilkes Booth (10)
11) Margaret Sanger (10)
9) Aldrich Ames (11)
9) Timothy McVeigh (11)
7) Ted Kennedy (14)
7) Lyndon Johnson (14)
5) Benedict Arnold (17)
5) Woodrow Wilson (17)
4) The Rosenbergs (19)
3) Franklin Delano Roosevelt (21)
2) Barack Obama (23)
1) Jimmy Carter (25)
I love the framing of the question: murderers, terrorists and "left-wing kooks". And what did these mental giants come up with? is Osama Bin Laden on the list? No. But FDR is. And he's WORSE than assassin John Wilkes Booth and domestic terrorist Tim McVeigh and traitors Aldrich Ames, Benedict Arnold and the Rosenbergs. And of course, the worst person in the history of the country is Jimmy Carter. Sorry Obama, you just missed the top spot.
Sweet Jesus, do these people have anything but bumper sticker slogans in their heads? The list is replete with such nonsense and brainless smearing (really, Jane Fonda and George Soros? Quick, someone on the right name for us how they have influenced the country. No fair cribbing notes from Glenn Beck).
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Friday, August 13, 2010
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
The 5 best things about the JetBlue flight attendant’s freakout
1. Before he exited, he grabbed a beer from the beverage cart.
2. After sliding down the emergency chute, he got on the Air Train, removed his company tie and threw it to the ground.
3. NBC New York: “When authorities found Slater he seemed to be in the midst of having sexual relations.”
4. When the cops came to get him, a neighbor working on a nearby roof said he “had a smile on his face when the cops brought him out, like, ‘Yeah, big deal.’ ”
5. He got to do what so many people wish they could do — tell off a rude customer, then quit, triumphantly. Which makes him, for today at least, an Internet folk hero.
Welfare Myths: Fact or Fiction?
Welfare Myths: Fact or Fiction?
Exploring the Truth about Welfare (Published 1996)
MYTH: Families stay on welfare for a long time and don't make any effort to get off.
FACT: Less than half of the families that receive AFDC receive it for more than 36 months overall and most families receive aid for no more than two years at a time.
MYTH: People become dependent on welfare because welfare is available to them.
FACT: Leading researchers agree there is no evidence substantiating the "welfare trap" theory.
MYTH: Welfare benefits for families provide them with enough to meet all their basic needs.
FACT: AFDC and Food Stamp benefits combined provide less than a poverty level income in all states and their value has been going steadily downward for many years.
MYTH: Even if AFDC benefits and Food Stamps don't provide enough to meet daily living needs, the shortfall is made up for by all the other benefits these families receive.
FACT: Most of the other major benefits available to poor families are available to only limited numbers of families and they do not add enough to family income to enable families to meet all their basic nonmedical needs.
MYTH: The differences in AFDC benefit levels around the country are due to cost of living differences and/or differences in wage rates.
FACT: Numerous studies have concluded that the range in benefit levels is far greater than any differences in cost of living around the country and wage variation is less than half as much as the benefit variation.
MYTH: Women receiving AFDC have lots of kids and go on having kids after they begin receiving aid, and that's why they need aid.
FACT: The most typical family size is a mother and one child and the birthrate among women receiving AFDC is lower than that in the rest of the population.
MYTH: The reason people need welfare is because they won't work.
FACT: The only adults receiving AFDC are those who are caring for children and over two-thirds of them have recent work experience from employment while receiving aid or before they applied for aid.
MYTH: Families wouldn't need assistance if they would just go to work.
FACT: Many families who are in the workplace cannot make it on their earnings alone and need assistance in addition in order to have any decent standard of living.
MYTH: Poor people move from one state to another to get higher AFDC benefits.
FACT: The evidence contradicts the "welfare magnet" theory and also shows that poor people move less than others and, when they do move, move in the same direction as the rest of the population.
MYTH: Almost all of the families receiving AFDC are Black or Hispanic.
FACT: Many more White families than Black families or Hispanic families are helped by the AFDC program.
MYTH: Nonmarital births have exploded, and welfare is the reason.
FACT: The nonmarital birthrate is less than 5% and there is no reliable evidence that welfare is a primary reason for the growth in nonmarital birthrates.
MYTH: Child support reform can eliminate most child poverty and most of the need for AFDC.
FACT: Even if there were no deadbeat parents, most poor children would still be poor, and most children who need AFDC would still need it.
MYTH: Large numbers of families are receiving AFDC benefits they are not entitled to and the government isn't doing anything about it.
FACT: The evidence indicates that only a small percentage of recipients are overpaid and that most of these errors are due to honest mistakes, and there are rigorous programs in place to limit all overpayments and weed out fraud.
MYTH: Spending on welfare programs to aid needy families is a major part of the federal budget.
FACT: Spending on all the public assistance programs that provide poor families with aid to meet their basic living needs, including medical needs, amounts to about 6% of the total federal budget.
These facts were found at:
http://www.welfarelaw.org/mythtoc.html
Exploring the Truth about Welfare (Published 1996)
MYTH: Families stay on welfare for a long time and don't make any effort to get off.
FACT: Less than half of the families that receive AFDC receive it for more than 36 months overall and most families receive aid for no more than two years at a time.
MYTH: People become dependent on welfare because welfare is available to them.
FACT: Leading researchers agree there is no evidence substantiating the "welfare trap" theory.
MYTH: Welfare benefits for families provide them with enough to meet all their basic needs.
FACT: AFDC and Food Stamp benefits combined provide less than a poverty level income in all states and their value has been going steadily downward for many years.
MYTH: Even if AFDC benefits and Food Stamps don't provide enough to meet daily living needs, the shortfall is made up for by all the other benefits these families receive.
FACT: Most of the other major benefits available to poor families are available to only limited numbers of families and they do not add enough to family income to enable families to meet all their basic nonmedical needs.
MYTH: The differences in AFDC benefit levels around the country are due to cost of living differences and/or differences in wage rates.
FACT: Numerous studies have concluded that the range in benefit levels is far greater than any differences in cost of living around the country and wage variation is less than half as much as the benefit variation.
MYTH: Women receiving AFDC have lots of kids and go on having kids after they begin receiving aid, and that's why they need aid.
FACT: The most typical family size is a mother and one child and the birthrate among women receiving AFDC is lower than that in the rest of the population.
MYTH: The reason people need welfare is because they won't work.
FACT: The only adults receiving AFDC are those who are caring for children and over two-thirds of them have recent work experience from employment while receiving aid or before they applied for aid.
MYTH: Families wouldn't need assistance if they would just go to work.
FACT: Many families who are in the workplace cannot make it on their earnings alone and need assistance in addition in order to have any decent standard of living.
MYTH: Poor people move from one state to another to get higher AFDC benefits.
FACT: The evidence contradicts the "welfare magnet" theory and also shows that poor people move less than others and, when they do move, move in the same direction as the rest of the population.
MYTH: Almost all of the families receiving AFDC are Black or Hispanic.
FACT: Many more White families than Black families or Hispanic families are helped by the AFDC program.
MYTH: Nonmarital births have exploded, and welfare is the reason.
FACT: The nonmarital birthrate is less than 5% and there is no reliable evidence that welfare is a primary reason for the growth in nonmarital birthrates.
MYTH: Child support reform can eliminate most child poverty and most of the need for AFDC.
FACT: Even if there were no deadbeat parents, most poor children would still be poor, and most children who need AFDC would still need it.
MYTH: Large numbers of families are receiving AFDC benefits they are not entitled to and the government isn't doing anything about it.
FACT: The evidence indicates that only a small percentage of recipients are overpaid and that most of these errors are due to honest mistakes, and there are rigorous programs in place to limit all overpayments and weed out fraud.
MYTH: Spending on welfare programs to aid needy families is a major part of the federal budget.
FACT: Spending on all the public assistance programs that provide poor families with aid to meet their basic living needs, including medical needs, amounts to about 6% of the total federal budget.
These facts were found at:
http://www.welfarelaw.org/mythtoc.html
Monday, August 9, 2010
Greg Gutfeld: raising money to build a Muslim gay bar next to the Ground Zero mosque
Greg Gutfeld: I’m raising money to build a Muslim gay bar next to the Ground Zero mosque
I’m announcing tonight, that I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men. To best express my sincere desire for dialogue, the bar will be situated next to the mosque Park51, in an available commercial space.
This is not a joke. I’ve already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.
As you know, the Muslim faith doesn’t look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I’m building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.
The goal, however, is not simply to open a typical gay bar, but one friendly to men of Islamic faith. An entire floor, for example, will feature non-alcoholic drinks, since booze is forbidden by the faith. The bar will be open all day and night, to accommodate men who would rather keep their sexuality under wraps – but still want to dance.
Censoring the Church, Seg. 1
i have a hard time believing this guys motivation was compassion...its just odd that a man would approach another man that way...
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Stephen Colbert fears the "arma-gay-ddon" after Prop 8 Ruling
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| How to Ruin Same-Sex Marriages | ||||
| ||||
Last night, Stephen Colbert said that he fears the "arma-gay-ddon" that will follow the decision to overturn Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California. "Who knows what tastefully arranged destruction awaits," he added.
"And surprise, surprise," Colbert continued. "Everybody guess what we've just learned about Judge Walker?" That's he's gay, Colbert said, noting that his "big gay bias is all over this decision. He even signed it gay: 'It is soooo ordered.'"
Jon Scott Looks At Prop 8 Coverage Through Right Wing Homophobic Glasses?
The recent California Court decision, declaring that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, has the clean, heterosexual panties of the right wing in a very tight bunch. Almost immediately after the decision, right wing homophobes did a full court press on smearing the judge in the case by claiming that Judge Vaughn Walker was unable to render a fair decision because he is gay. Not surprisingly, the Fox show that’s supposed to be a “fair & balanced” critique of the news, “Fox News Watch,” had a segment on this. It began with Jon Scott’s partisan introduction which seemed to spin in a “right” direction. In addition to Muslims, undocumented immigrants (read Hispanic), the LGBT community is not exactly beloved by the right wing. Thus, it’s not exactly shocking that Fox “News,” as the mouthpiece for the right wing, would give them a shout out as part of the “fair & balanced” programming. Oh, and during the Prop 8 segment, Jim Pinkerton said something that was really inane – but what else is new on “Fox News Watch?!”
During his initial report on the Prop 8 decision, Scott referenced how the judge was openly gay. He didn’t mention that he was appointed by President GW Bush to the Federal bench. (Why does the judge’s sexual orientation have anything to do with this? Should straight judges not hear cases related to heterosexuals? Should black judges not hear cases involving whites and vice-versa?) Scott said “there were cheers everywhere including on the front pages.” As evidence of this “bias,” he showed fact based headlines like “Ban on Gay Marriage Overturned” (uh, Jon, that’s what happened!); US Judge Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban” (uh, Jon, that’s what happened); and “Marriage Milestone” (uh, Jon, that’s what it is). So, nice agitprop there. Scott takes the right wing meme and produces what he thinks is “evidence.” Cute.
Jim Pinkerton said that because the NY Times ran a “puffy” article about Judge Walker, that was proof that “he gave them what they wanted.” (So, Jim, do Karl Rove articles in the Wall Street Journal prove some sort of collusion?) The chyron was odd: “Prop 8 and the Press, Who Defines Marriage?” Jon asked “does his sexual orientation deserve media attention?” (Badda Boom, right wing talking point delivered one minute into the show.) Kirsten Powers said no and mentioned how the gays had problems with him in the past. Ellis Hennican mentioned, because Scott didn’t, that the judge was appointed by a Republican president. Pinkerton asked if the judge would have had the article in the NY Times if the decision had been different. Conservative SE Cupp said that one doesn’t need to look at the judge's sexual orientation because his decision was full of bias about marriage and sexuality. Powers said that when the media doesn’t like something, there’s a “character assassination” which seems to be happening in this case. Pinkerton reference how Anita Bryant was “crucified.” (Right, she made homophobic comments for which she deserved everything she got!) Hennican said that while we sometimes need to know personal details about public figures, it should be done in a balanced way. Scott then asked about the “language”thing because Prop 8 “defined marriage as between a man and a woman” (Right wing belief alert, right wing belief alert) “and the headlines are all about how this is a ban on gay marriage.” He asked if this “was an important distinction, and if so, should the media make it clear.” (Talk about “distinction without a difference” – Prop 8, in defining what “marriage” is about banned same sex marriage – So WTF are you talking about?! Should the headlines have been “Judge Rules That Marriage Is No Longer Between A Man And A Woman” cuz that’s not really the substance of the decision which was about “equal protection” and that Prop 8 is unconstitutional because it doesn’t afford what that pesky “anchor baby” amendment provides)
The issue of the definition of marriage was slightly off topic for the discussion of Prop 8's press coverage; but Scott’s question afforded the heterosexually married Jim Pinkerton to quote Peter Ferrara of the American Civil Rights Union who, according to Pinkerton, said “by this logic where do you go on marrying animals, polygamy.” Peter Ferrera's group's idea of "Civil Rights" was to file an amicus brief in support of a California doctor who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian. And he’s no stranger to the Murdoch empire. Only the other day, his article “What’s Next, Bigamy” appeared on the Fox News website. (ah, that old “slippery slope” – the same arguments used against interracial marriage). Pinkerton's homophobic and idiotic comment was met with laughter from the rest of the panel. Powers asserted that this was a civil rights issue.
Comment: While the panel was fair & balanced and, with the exception of Jim Pinkerton, lucid, Scott’s spin was obvious. Eric Burns, we miss you! The question is who is more bizarrely right wing - Jim Pinkerton or Cal Thomas?
Fox News' ratings got the Stephen Colbert treatment
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| P.K. Winsome - Black Viewer Ratings | ||||
| ||||
Fox News' ratings got the Stephen Colbert treatment last night. "They tout their ratings so much, I'm surprised they don't slap a blonde wig on them and give them their own show," he said, but only before launching into a full segment about the network's African-American viewership.
It seems that recent tweet by the NYTimes' Brian Stelter pointing at the network's black audience has now directly inspired a "Colbert Report" segment: "Anatomy lesson: I tweet that Fox News has 29k black viewers; HuffPo picks it up; Colbert researcher calls to fact-check; he uses it on-air," Stelter wrote last night.
Bill O'Reilly Explains Why He Thinks Black People Want White People's Money
Bill O'Reilly Explains Why He Thinks Black People Want White People's Money
Reported by Ellen
between blacks and whites. I believe O'Reilly was making what he thought was a fair and balanced explanation about the differences in blacks' and whites' attitudes toward government. But just like when O'Reilly gushed over the surprisingly pleasant behavior of the patrons at a Harlem restaurant, his comments were a Freudian slip that amounted to, as Rachel Maddow later put it, a conclusion that "black people want white people's money." Actually, it was worse than that. (H/T reader John M.)O'Reilly began with his take on white America:
"According to the polls, most white Americans don't like the huge expansion of the federal government. They also oppose the big spending increases that the president has imposed. It's simple. White Americans fear government control. They don't want the feds telling them what to do and they don't want a bankrupt nation."
O'Reilly went on to "explain" the black perspective: "Black America has a totally different view. For decades, African Americans have supported a bigger federal government... so it can impose social justice. The vast majority of blacks want money spent to level the playing field, to redistribute income from the white establishment to their precincts and to provide better education and healthcare at government (read: white) expense. So the African American voter generally loves what President Obama is doing."
O'Reilly later noted that the "social justice" component also exists among Hispanic voters.
"There are now two Americas," O'Reilly continued, "The minority community continues to believe that society is not completely fair to them and they want a huge government apparatus to change that. And while the white community may sympathize with the minority situation, they apparently believe that more harm than good is being done to the country with the cost of social justice programs."
O'Reilly's statements, highlighted above, are very telling don't you think? By saying "The vast majority of blacks want money spent to level the playing field, to redistribute income from the white establishment to their precincts," O'Reilly is not just saying African Americans want white people's money but he's suggesting that whites are the only source of money - or at least the only source of money blacks are interested in - and that all black supporters of Obama are poor. I'd wager that poor black people who support higher taxes for the wealthy believe that wealthy African Americans should pay just as much as wealthy white people and that federal assistance should go to poor whites as much as poor blacks.
In any event, my analysis is at least as valid as O'Reilly's. He offered absolutely no evidence for his conclusions and yet he presented them as though he had some unique insight into each group.
Oh, and one other thing O'Reilly implicitly suggested: That Obama shares or at least caters to that "take it from whitey" mentality that, in O'Reilly's world, is universally held by African Americans.
Rachel Maddow Escalates Feud With Bill O’Reilly, Calls His Defense Of Fox News ‘Bullpucky’
Remember when the cable news cycle was dominated by the ongoing early-aughts feud between Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann
? Well, with Olbermann working on a host of other targets, Rachel Maddow is stepping up to the plate and creating a history of her own with the longtime Factor host since he attacked her for her criticism of Fox News– and this time, the feud includes all sorts of formal logic terms in Latin! No, “bullpucky” isn’t one of them. Maddow began her segment on the Fox News anchor last night by pointing out one of her own errors– his attacks on her based on his enormous ratings aren’t ad hominem, they’re argumentum ad populum– the fancy name for the “bandwagon technique.” Thanks, viewer with a Ph.D. in classical logic!Then she went on to explain why both his ad populum attacks regarding ratings and his ad hominem attacks calling her a loon were wrong, but highlighted specifically his point that there was “no evidence” that Fox News ran stories designed to “scare white people,” as she put it. That point she classified as “so stupid” it didn’t even have a Latin name:
“It’s him saying that there’s no evidence to back up my claim that Fox News consistently runs stories it says are news, but that nobody else really covers– stories that are ginned up, exaggerated, charicatured, in some cases just flat-out made up scare stories designed to make white people afraid of black people. Designed to make it seem that black people– or in some cases, immigrants– are threatening white people and taking what is rightfully theirs.”She gave that claim a name of it’s own: bullpucky.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)