I just got off the phone with Alaska Airlines. Because I unfortunately have to cancel my little Midwest vacation, I have 2 options for my frequent flyer miles:
1) Keep my miles floating in cyberspace and have only ONE year to use them, or they disappear
2) Pay Alaska 50 bucks to get them credited back onto my mileage plan and use them whenever I want
Wait, WHAT?! I have to either scramble to make sure and take vacation within a year of my original trip or I get to pay to be able to use them whenever I want (which by the way is the idea behind their mileage plan, you can save them for years and years). This is BOGUS. I feel so violated..........I EARNED THOSE MILES YOU FUCKERS!
In other news.......
The Fark led me to THIS article. Uhhhh.........I think it's pretty interesting that Fred Phelps and his group of hate-mongers call themselves Christians and think that they have the power of GOD behind them. I'm fairly sure that someone as powerful as GOD would give you a less psychotic spokeswoman to further your cause. Check out this clip of her on Fox news in regards to the very protests that they cover in this article. Julie Banderas does lose it a little bit, but you know what? GOOD. Professionalism in Television has no room in dealing with nutjobs like this.
What a crazy bitch.
While I'm on the subject...does anyone else think there's a frightening resemblance between Shirley Phelps-Roper and the crazy evil old preacher from poltergeist?
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Airline's can Fuck you.......Oh yeah and God Hates Fags
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
You have to keep in mind while watching that clip that you're witnessing two misguided people interviewing eachother. Besides, what is Fox's motto? Unbiased news. We report, you decide. Of course we all know that the motto is worthless. Regardless, a good journalist or interviewer will ask intelligent questions based on what they're hearing from the subject and research they've done before hand. Personal beliefs should not come through in statements, and no accusations should directly be made. If the person you're interviewing is an idiot/whackjob/f**ktard etc, it will become readily apparent from their answers to your questions. In this case she already had plenty of bad press in regards to her family's picketing of funerals, and everyone was ready to scream at this woman and her family before the interview.
Is she evil because she is doing what she believes is right? Should she be condemned for her dedication to her cause? She faces strong opposition every day, people constantly telling her that she is a monster. Yet she continues on trying to save us all from her wrathful god. She and Bush are identical in my eyes.
Orgum: Welcome. Intersting points...
Danny: You're right. I think she's a crazy bitch, and I have the freedom to call her and her cause that. I'm not declaring they shouldn't protest. I just think it's disgusting and shameful that they claim to uphold ANY sort of christian values while saying that god is hateful.
To Danny: I find just the opposite in my life. I have to sit through mind numbing God/Jesus diatribes and hold my tongue. It must have alot to do with what area of the country a person lives. But you brought up an interesting point of view for me to ponder and I always like that.
To HST: I am inclined to agree with you but I realize we can't run the world.
Wow, that's one of the most hostile interviews I've ever seen. I'm pretty sure that if that had been face to face it would have descended into pro-wrestling and watersports.
Danny's got a point when he talks about inequality in how we apply freedom of speech. But Danny's also bitter because he's in the minority. Beneath his thin sheen of sexual deviance is an ultra conservative just bursting to get out.
I kid. Mostly.
As a serious rebuttal, yes we all have a right to freedom of speech. Even offensive nutjobs have a right to speak their piece and express themselves as they see fit.
But there are other rights at play here. People should have a right bury their dead with dignity. People should have a right to grieve. Those rights aren't specifically defined anywhere, but does anyone really doubt that they're a good idea?
This would not be the first time that freedom of speech has been curtailed. The First Amendment was ratified and became law in 1791. We waited a whole seven years before passing our first major legislation limiting free speech. The Sedition Act of 1798 made it illegal to speak out against the government.
That act expired in 1800 (and good riddance), but it did establish the idea that "freedom of speech" does not mean "you have the right to say any damn thing you please."
As a people we've decided that no one has the right to slander, to threaten, to harass, to incite violence. Maybe it's time we also decide no one has the right to strip away a family's dignity while they're burying their sons and daughters.
That said...
I think it's a really good idea to make it easy for crazy people to protest. Sunlight cures lots of things. I'd much rather have the fringe element out in the open where we can all see them clearly, instead of stuck in the dark corners of society fermenting into God knows what.
Perhaps what we need is not to ban protests, but to manage them. Work out some kind of buffer zone. Have to file a permit to protest a funeral, can't protest within a certain range, etc, etc.
That would give a family their right to mourn, the protesters a right to speak, and the rest of us a chance to keep on eye on the kooks.
During the last presidential elections so-called "free speech" zones were established. They were basically fenced in areas where people could go who didn't like something about that particular convention and scream and yell all they wanted. I didn't particularly agree with fencing off a certain spot for "free speech" but in cases like this I think it would work well.
These nut jobs could go to a predetermined area that is cordoned off and scream all their hateful tripe they want. The area could be located in such a way that the family and other funeral goers do not have to pass them during the funeral possession.
Like Joe, I feel that they should be allowed to protest. Their protests just shows how twisted and perverted their "god" is. If you want to diminish and weaken nut jobs you have to expose them to the light.
While I found the shouting match enjoyable, all it really did in the end was show that the person from Fox News isn't a real journalist. She should have maintained her composure and not shouted over the Westboro nut. As someone else wrote, if she had asked probing questions based on research and what the woman was saying she would have done a much better job of showing these people as the lunatics they are. Instead we had a cat fight.
I do agree, though, she does look like the female equivalent of that guy from Poltergeist.
Hm, an interesting post and an even more interesting comment box.
I believe in the concept that all people should be allowed to say what they want, and Joe has a point when he says that while the interview may have been entertaining, the real rights extend to the people who are affected by this woman and her actions. Do I hate her actions because of the way that she behaved on a television interview? No. I hate them because they torment people who are already in pain, under the guise of "I can say what I want when I want". Respect... it's an important thing. And just as we should corral respect for the mourning family, we should acknowledge some level of respect for the freedoms that we enjoy in this country.
As Danny, points out- everyone loves free speech when their view is the one being represented. And I also call BS on him because I can think of many a conversation where he insinuated that everyone's rights aren't always equal and shouldn't be.
So there. ;) How do ya like me now?
Hmm, I think I might win the LONGEST comment award. I don't have the most, but I might just have the longest....
MT, you're my mom, of course you agree with me ;-)
Joe, yes you make a good point.
Laura I have to say that you are correct. I think that Banderas was not entirely professional, then again I was reacting with how I WANTED to scream at Shirley Phelps-Roper so it seemed to make sense to me. Then again, it IS fox news........
Lulu: I like you Just fine:) And always will:)
Everyone all ready knows how I feel about this, so I'm just going to agree how these two pictures are holy shit a lot alike. Coincidence? Um...yeah, I don't believe in them. It makes sense that the creepy old evil preacher fuck should look like this poor excuse for a "christian" woman. If the shoe fits wear it. Right in her ass, or is that so flippin' tight that nothing could penetrate it?
Hey, nothing wrong with a tight ass. I'm just sayin.
Post a Comment