Here I was, minding my own business, when I came across the following quote in a news story I was reading:

Tim Hwang, a researcher of online movements and memes and the managing director of the Web Ecology Project, says that The Bloggernacle illustrates a fact we often overlook: “The Internet is not coterminous with the real world.” He told me by email, “Like in a rearview mirror communities can be smaller than they appear on the Internet: discussion is often subject to parties who are loudest and can rally the most participants to appear online and participate at that specific moment.”

 Then I realized I had misread it. It was actually about Ron Paul. 😉

The Equalizer

As a teenager I remember watching an episode of the TV show called The Equalizer. In this particular episode there were a number of racist skinheads that were causing problems and using violence and intimidation. But then, in a later scene, a black gang in a van road into a white part of town and while shouting “black power!” opened fired and killed innocent victims.

I remember being shocked by it because it was portraying African Americans in a negative light. But I did a quick internal check. I asked myself this: Is it’s okay for us to portray white racists using violence against African Americans – so that we can see that this is wrong? Yes. Then why is it not also acceptable to also portray African American racists using violence against Caucasians to equally condemn that sort of violence and racism as well?

With my new found openness I, rather then being appalled at the show, thought they were gutsy for portraying both sides of racism like this. Continue reading →

I thought this article was interesting. Read it and then the title of the post will make sense. Strangely, I couldn’t decide if the name of the post should be 3.5:1 or 13:1 since the article essentially claims both. I hate statistics.

Discuss.

Get a load of this unbelievab article from Yahoo by Andrew Riggio. And the left wonders why the right distrustful of the media. Honestly, I can easily believe someone believes this. I am profoundly shocked that they wrote it down without even a pretense to non-bigotry and then Yahoo Contributor Network allowed it to be published — and as an Editor’s pick no less (which is how I found it.)

Underlying this sincere[ly misguided] article is a growing narrative amongst all forms of secularism (including not only atheism but also Karen Armstrong style religiosity) that Atheism in its many forms is somehow not a ideological world view (i.e. a meaning meme) whereas religion is, and therefore atheism has an advantage in not being biased.

This is a dangerous point of view that would, if Andrew Riggio has his way, result in outright tyranny. Never let it be said that Atheists don’t wish to oppress others for having the wrong dogmas.

Well, it’s been a while since I made my “prophesy” back on Dec 3, 2011 that Gingrich would be the Republican nominee. [1]

Since then it’s been an amazing ride. I’m sure Seth R (who I have a bet with) thought he had me pretty much beat even just a few days ago back when Mitt Romney was ‘inevitable’ (for the nth time) and was going to walk away with wins in all three of the first primaries — a feat no Republican nominee has ever done.

So I want to quote myself from what I wrote back here on Dec 8th in a follow on post:

I suppose the reason I disagree with the experts is that I feel that these experts aren’t taking the true prejudice 1/3 of Evangelicals feel towards Mormons into consideration because they don’t really understand it. They are still thinking in terms of normal rational behavior, not prejudice behavior. To me, it seems obvious that these experts keep getting it wrong precisely because they don’t understand the level of prejudice that exists. So, for example, they keep predicting that Romney is ‘inevitable’ or what have you.

But Romney was inevitable! Seth R put up a link to this article explaining (back then) why the Republican power brokers would not back him and how it was impossible to win without them. Gingrich is wrong across the board. He’s a bad person, a bad candidate, a bad example of social conservativism, a bad everything really. There should be no way he could get the nomination.

Continue reading →