Media Bias
Fox News doesn't care about black people
I'm sorry, you were mistaken. This is Rupert Murdoch's Space.
When I first saw this article, I was outraged.
Take a look:
MYSpace Exiles Atheists
By Wendy Kaminer
MYSpace has deleted the 35,000 member “Atheist and Agnostic Group” in response to complaints from people who are offended by atheism, according to a press release posted by the Secular Student Alliance. Group Moderator Bryan Pesta stressed that the atheist and agnostic group had not violated any terms of service, adding, “when the largest Christian group was hacked, MYSpace’s founder, Tom Anderson, personally restored the group, and promised to protect it from future deletions.”
What in the hell. How dare they delete a huge group on the basis that it "offends people". They have 42,521 gay related groups. When you search for "sex", there are 5,000 results. Why choose this one group?!
And what the hell for deleting a group simply on the basis that it offended someone!?
"I'm sorry, your beliefs may have offended a few people, therefore we must now delete them"? I mean, it's not like deleting the group with make them, or their beliefs, go away, it's just taking it away from those who have chosen to go and look at it.
So, I was shocked when I read it. And then, I remembered. MySpace is owned by Rupert Murdoch. That's right, centrist, fairness and equality (Oh, and balance!) loving Rupert Murdoch of Fox News fame.
I was remarkably less surprised after that.
Rupert Murdoch, who owns MySpace, is not the government: he is not constrained by constitutional strictures against religious discrimination, which include discrimination against atheists, (although he could conceivably be bound by a contract or civil statute;) and while the non-theist movement is growing and becoming more visible, it’s not exactly a market force worthy of Murdoch’s notice. So, if he can delete atheists from his social networking site, he can delete any religious, racial, ethnic, or demographic group that he doesn’t need to cultivate. The exiling of atheists should not be a concern for atheists alone.
Obviously, it demonstrates the perils of encouraging people to believe that they have a right not to be offended. I can’t think of a good reason for anyone but atheists to care that atheists have a presence on MySpace, but people are entitled to their sensibilities, however foolish they appear to me. The trouble is, they feel entitled to impose their sensibilities on others by restricting speech; and even, or especially, our higher education system seems partly devoted to imbuing students with this anti-libertarian sense of entitlement (a trend we often decry here at thefreeforall.)
(emphasis mine)
There are still a few Atheist/Agnostic groups on MySpace (One called "Atheist Agnostic Group III, making me wonder "Hmm...Why the III?") However, there are a lot less than any I searched for.
And just so you know, when I search for "Christian" in groups, I came up with 5,000 results. When I searched for Atheist, I came up with 359, and many of those were repeats of the same group.
I'm not trying to cry wolf here. I'm not pissed off because it's an Atheist group being removed (However, that is how I found out about it), I'm angry because a group was removed because their beliefs (or lack of beliefs) "offended" people. How inconvenient of them to have beliefs that could be perceived as offensive.
But really, could imagine all 35,000 of those people getting together and complaining about a Christian Group, and the Christian group getting deleted? Somehow, I find that slightly harder to see happening.
Hactivists scold the media for not exposing Scientology's human rights violations
CNN still gets a chub at the prospect of coronating a new front-runner
WSJ: Retroactive Immunity for Telcos is dead
The pompous twats at Rupert Murdoch's new Wall Street Journal are reporting that Senator Reid will not be bringing the issue of immunity for telco companies back up in the senate.
I refer to the authors as "pompous twats" for many reasons:
- They disingenuously claim that the telcos are being sued for committing "the crime of answering a President's request for assistance". They are actually being sued for violating federal laws.
- They claim that the immunity bill was "bi-partisan", despite the fact that it faced a firestorm of opposition from Democrats around the country and most of the Democrats in Congress.
- "Most Americans think it's preposterous that a judge should have to approve listening to [alleged] foreign enemies". Sorry, wrong again. Most Americans think warrants and judicial oversight are a pretty damn good idea.
- Worst of all, the WSJ dishonestly presents the issue as whether or not Democrats want to wiretap suspected criminals. It has never been about that. This is about whether or not we should have court oversight, whether or not the President is above the law, and whether or not the Constitution means anything. Under pre-2007 FISA law, the executive branch had to go to all the trouble of asking for a warrant, AFTER THE WIRETAPPING WAS OVER, from a secretive court that never says no. They decided this minimal court oversight was too much, that the president should be able to spy on people without anyone making sure that the spying was legitimate and not an abuse of power.
Mexican-bashing most important issue to debate! War, lawlessness, tyranny dismissed as "gotcha questions" from sneaky Dems
Time for us to stop pretending that these charades are actual debates about important issues. Cancel them all. What is the point? Why did they even pretend that the substance of the questions was remotely influenced by everyday people? Its absurd.
I have difficulty believing that "How many guns do you own?" or 'What does the "stars and bars' flag represent?" is a more appropriate or more popular question than "Does the President have authority to kidnap people and hold them permanently without trial?" or "Do you support massive domestic warrantless surveillance and data mining?"
Its absurd that NO ONE - not Democrats or Republicans - has been asked anything about fundamental constitutional issues like separation of powers and protection of civil liberties.
Its our fault, I suppose. We aren't doing enough collectively screaming bloody murder and demanding adherence to our traditional democratic principles to force our corrupt, rotten political and media elites to change course.
Here is a list of questions that actually made it through:
Will you make America a 'sanctuary city' country?
Will you pledge to veto amnesty for illegal immigrants?
With immigration reform failing, will I have a job?
Lower college tuition rates - military families or illegals?
Do you believe in a conspiracy to make a new union?
What measures will you take to tackle the national debt?
What are the top three federal programs you would cut?
Do you support a 'Fair Tax'?
Will you pledge never to raise taxes?
Will you eliminate farm subsidies?
How will you keep lead-laced toys out of my home?
What is your opinion on gun control?
Do you believe in a required written exam for gun ownership?
How many guns do you own?
What will you do to reduce crime in the inner cities?
If abortion is illegal, what should the punishment be?
Would you sign a federal abortion ban?
On the Death Penalty, what would Jesus do?
Do you believe every word of The Holy Bible?
How would you repair the image of America?
Is waterboarding torture?
Will you make a permanent commitment to the people of Iraq?
Is your campaign exploiting 9/11?
Should Vice-President Dick Cheney have so much power?
A gay Brigadier General asks a question
Do you accept the support of log cabin republicans?
Will you repay the $2 trillion borrowed from Social Security?
What is your vision for human space exploration?
Why don't many African-Americans vote Republican?
What does the "stars and bars" flag represent?
How can we repair the infrastructure of America
Mr. Paul, are you going to run as an independent?
Michael Moore just put the smackdown on Wolf Blitzer, Round 2
Michael Moore just put the smackdown on Wolf Blitzer
Michael Moore just owned Wolf Blitzer's punk ass. Every time I've seen that corporate wuss Blitzer on TV, I've always wished someone would smack that pseudo-newsman around just a little bit. Finally, Michael Moore has made my dream come true.
Watch the video here.
** Update **
Here is the youtube video:
** Update 2 **
This video has the CNN smear piece that was right before the interview:
** Update 3 **
Tell CNN to apologize to its viewers for lying to its viewers, distorting information and failing to uphold basic journalistic principles.
Our Poor, Lonely President. Pity Him. PITY HIM, NOW!
If you're ever looking for an opportunity to feel sorry for our Dear, Pitiful President, then have I got an article for you!
It starts off semi-unassumingly with the title, "A President Besieged and Isolated, Yet at Ease" but, unfortunately, it's all downhill from there.
The first page tells of his recent endeavors to find out why he is so hated, why things are going so wrong, WHY anything is the way it is. And, he does this by summoning intellectuals, 'experts', and what-not to the Oval Office, or the living rooms in the White House.
Over sodas and sparkling water, he asks his questions: What is the nature of good and evil in the post-Sept. 11 world? What lessons does history have for a president facing the turmoil I'm facing? How will history judge what we've done? Why does the rest of the world seem to hate America? Or is it just me they hate?
Pic: Proof that Atheists are the intolerant bastards.
