I do not need words for this post. I think these videos speak to the greater youth appeal of Obama as compared to Hillary--not to say that there are no young people who like her.
versus
While both videos lack policy-related substance, it is clear which one is inspiring, and which is lame.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Monday, February 4, 2008
weightist lawmaker proposes discriminatory legislation
Representative John Read of Gautier, a Republican from Mississippi, actually proposed banning restaurants from serving obese customers. Apparently, we are supposed to feel better about this because Gautier never thought this would become law.
Let's see, this elected official's idea of "shedding light" on a health crisis is to legally recognize a policy of discrimination, violate our right to privacy and equal protection under the law, publicly humiliate and punish the "obese," and essentially declare that the government should regulate your body. What better way to fan the culturally-sanctioned stigma against our obese friends?
Not to mention the arbitrary lines that separate over-weight from obese, and health from dis-health.
If your state is chronically suffering from poor dietary habits, why not introduce a comprehensive nutrition program into schools, libraries and community centers? Why not amp up the recreational programs at parks and other facilities? Why not help businesses that will help combat the problem?
Instead, we should dehumanize people in ways that are, besides unconstitutional, absolutely idiotic. As if refusing to sell someone fried pork drenched in butter-gravy splooge in a local eatery would prevent that person from going to market and preparing their own meals. This flagrantly-flawed plan shows all too well its intentions--mockery.
Let's see, this elected official's idea of "shedding light" on a health crisis is to legally recognize a policy of discrimination, violate our right to privacy and equal protection under the law, publicly humiliate and punish the "obese," and essentially declare that the government should regulate your body. What better way to fan the culturally-sanctioned stigma against our obese friends?
Not to mention the arbitrary lines that separate over-weight from obese, and health from dis-health.
If your state is chronically suffering from poor dietary habits, why not introduce a comprehensive nutrition program into schools, libraries and community centers? Why not amp up the recreational programs at parks and other facilities? Why not help businesses that will help combat the problem?
Instead, we should dehumanize people in ways that are, besides unconstitutional, absolutely idiotic. As if refusing to sell someone fried pork drenched in butter-gravy splooge in a local eatery would prevent that person from going to market and preparing their own meals. This flagrantly-flawed plan shows all too well its intentions--mockery.
got to love Bush and his $3.1 TRILLION plan
Just what I want to hear as my professional life/taxation are slowly creeping closer...
President Bush unveiled a $3.1 trillion budget on Monday that supports sizable increases in military spending to fight the war on terrorism and protects his signature tax cuts.
...Bush projects that the deficits, which had been declining, will soar to near-record levels, hitting $410 billion this year and $407 billion in 2009. The all-time high deficit in dollar terms was $413 billion in 2004.
President Bush unveiled a $3.1 trillion budget on Monday that supports sizable increases in military spending to fight the war on terrorism and protects his signature tax cuts.
...Bush projects that the deficits, which had been declining, will soar to near-record levels, hitting $410 billion this year and $407 billion in 2009. The all-time high deficit in dollar terms was $413 billion in 2004.
toxic baby products
Baby shampoos, lotions and powders may expose infants to chemicals that have been linked with possible reproductive problems, a small study suggests.
The chemicals, called phthalates, are found in many ordinary products including cosmetics, toys, vinyl flooring and medical supplies. They are used to stabilize fragrances and make plastics flexible.
It's not enough for your food to be organic--anything that touches your body (and goes into any orifice) should be toxin-free.
The chemicals, called phthalates, are found in many ordinary products including cosmetics, toys, vinyl flooring and medical supplies. They are used to stabilize fragrances and make plastics flexible.
It's not enough for your food to be organic--anything that touches your body (and goes into any orifice) should be toxin-free.
Maria Shriver Endorses Obama
Maria endorses Obama, which is a nice in comparison to Arnold's endorsement of McCain.
I would love to be a fly on the wall in that marriage.
I would love to be a fly on the wall in that marriage.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
now you can shout The Colonic a holler
Beloved Readers,
Feel free to send me an email with comments, questions, concerns, ideas, and the like at TheColonic@gmail.com
Love,
The Colonic
Feel free to send me an email with comments, questions, concerns, ideas, and the like at TheColonic@gmail.com
Love,
The Colonic
Hillary is just an upgraded version of the same old story
I understand that America is caught up in the "first female president" frenzy--and as an advocate of humanism, full integration of women (and minorities) into the political realm is quite exciting.
Of course I would not deny the factual result of a Hillary victory--yes, she WOULD be the first female president.
But let's look at this situation for what it is: a modern version of the same story. That is to say, Hillary is adhering that age-old feminine script--accessing power through the male.
As an oppressed collective, female privilege has historically been mediated through the male, so while a female president is beyond impressive, let's get real--she's only an option because of Bill. She won the New York senatorial seat because of Bill. Her political clout is because of Bill.
I am not trying to say that without Bill, Hillary would never have entered politics. But I can bet money she would never have been a front-runner for the presidency.
So like I said--females accessing power through the male. Then again, I suppose it is better than remaining powerless. And I hope this can normalize the overall result of empowered women. Hopefully some day, we can skip the middle-man.
Of course I would not deny the factual result of a Hillary victory--yes, she WOULD be the first female president.
But let's look at this situation for what it is: a modern version of the same story. That is to say, Hillary is adhering that age-old feminine script--accessing power through the male.
As an oppressed collective, female privilege has historically been mediated through the male, so while a female president is beyond impressive, let's get real--she's only an option because of Bill. She won the New York senatorial seat because of Bill. Her political clout is because of Bill.
I am not trying to say that without Bill, Hillary would never have entered politics. But I can bet money she would never have been a front-runner for the presidency.
So like I said--females accessing power through the male. Then again, I suppose it is better than remaining powerless. And I hope this can normalize the overall result of empowered women. Hopefully some day, we can skip the middle-man.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Friday, February 1, 2008
rethinking the meat-guzzler
Great read from the New York Times on the environmental/agricultural devastations of meat over-consumption.
religion, the christian hierarchy, and the presidency
As much as presidential hopefuls like to whine about the discrimination they face because of their faith--ooh, people hate on me because I'm Mormon; ooh, I'm seen as a former minister, not governor--the truth of the matter is, I don't know where this alleged attack on religion is coming from. The way I see it, you HAVE to prescribe to religion in order to be a viable candidate. If I hear Hillary or Barack, the liberals, reference god or faith one more time, I will vomit.
I actually think that candidates even enjoy saying that they are judged for their faith, simply so they can keep reiterating their own religiosity and instill in the public how their holy crap smells like roses after all.
When candidates whine about religious discrimination, they are really complaining about the Christian hierarchy which gives higher appeal to certain types of Christians. But as long as you love Jesus, you still reap the benefits of the Christian advantage.
Once you move out of Christian pool of privilege, then you really feel the heat of discrimination. Americans will surely get a woman or black Christian president before a male Jew. But even so, all monotheists share the God Lover advantage, and therefore will always experience public favor over say atheists, who revoke the God Lover advantage by revoking God.
However, in terms of the presidency, it can be argued that at this particular historical moment, an atheist could one-up a Muslim...but only the context of alleged Islamo-fascism.
While the presidency is off-limits to non-Christians, Congress is slowly becoming a different matter. There is one openly-atheist member of the House: Representative Pete Stark (D-Cal), a member since 1973. And in 2007, the first Muslim Representative, Keith Ellison, was sworn in on Thomas Jefferson's Koran.
Although it is worth noting that, according to the Secular Coalition, "If the number of nontheists in Congress reflected the percentage of nontheists in the population, there would be 53-54 nontheistic Congress members instead of one."
I actually think that candidates even enjoy saying that they are judged for their faith, simply so they can keep reiterating their own religiosity and instill in the public how their holy crap smells like roses after all.
When candidates whine about religious discrimination, they are really complaining about the Christian hierarchy which gives higher appeal to certain types of Christians. But as long as you love Jesus, you still reap the benefits of the Christian advantage.
Once you move out of Christian pool of privilege, then you really feel the heat of discrimination. Americans will surely get a woman or black Christian president before a male Jew. But even so, all monotheists share the God Lover advantage, and therefore will always experience public favor over say atheists, who revoke the God Lover advantage by revoking God.
However, in terms of the presidency, it can be argued that at this particular historical moment, an atheist could one-up a Muslim...but only the context of alleged Islamo-fascism.
While the presidency is off-limits to non-Christians, Congress is slowly becoming a different matter. There is one openly-atheist member of the House: Representative Pete Stark (D-Cal), a member since 1973. And in 2007, the first Muslim Representative, Keith Ellison, was sworn in on Thomas Jefferson's Koran.
Although it is worth noting that, according to the Secular Coalition, "If the number of nontheists in Congress reflected the percentage of nontheists in the population, there would be 53-54 nontheistic Congress members instead of one."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
