Monday, January 27, 2014

Tucker Carlson, You Can't Sit With Us

In a segment about laws that could potentially curtail your personal freedoms, Tucker Carlson of Fox News says “I have a 17-year-old, whom I love more than my own life of course, but are 17-year-old really capable of choosing an entrĂ©e at a restaurant, much less voting?” the Fox News host wondered. “I mean, for real. Do we want them voting?”

Would you like to cut my meat for me too, Mr. Carlson?

What's up with Republicans saying their own teenagers are not smart enough to VOTE?

If these remarks were made based on race or gender, Mr. Carlson would have to apologize. He should do the same thing here, if only to the many 17 year olds who've been capable enough to earn wages and pay taxes by preparing and serving food. He's talking about the very people our country's future depends on and telling us we shouldn't participate because we're not capable.

If Mr. Carlson really thinks youth civic education needs improvement, maybe he could try to reach out more to young viewers. He had the perfect opportunity to do this by having Katherine Timpf of Campus Reform on his show. Not only can Ms. Timpf order her own food, she knows things like there are young people out there who are Conservatives and even more of them in the middle who could potentially vote for Republicans. Young voters in Virginia chose Ken Cuccinelli 45 to 39 percent over Terry McAulliffe and helped Chris Christie in New Jersey.

I mean, for real.

Not only are young voters capable of choosing an entree, we can influence the choices offered. Any candidate who doesn't respect our intelligence isn't worthy of our vote. Any news person who rejects an opportunity to appeal to young viewers and instead chooses to insult us is worthy of our scorn. The people who care about the future of this country and want to see it continue to move forward will not stand for these insults to a legacy they have helped build.

You don't get to discuss who is going to pay the check if you tell us we're too dumb to order off the menu. If this is what you're serving, young voters and future voters will chew you up and spit you out.

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

For Whom the Bell Tolls

The Salvation Army says it opposes "demeaning or mistreating anyone for reason of his or her sexual orientation."

But then it says if you work for the Salvation Army and perform or participate in a same-sex marriage or union:


If you're gay, the Salvation Army doesn't blame you. They don't deny that you exist and feel that marginalizing you is not helpful. They have no clue why you're gay. That's complex. Even though "some Christian believers witness a reorientation to heterosexuality," they understand "this has not been the experience of all." 
Since there's no scriptural support for marginalizing, demeaning, or mistreating you, if you're an officer in the Salvation Army your job is safe as long as you "uphold the New Testament standard of marriage as articulated by the Salvation Army." This means:


If you're a Salvation Army employee who hasn't witnessed a "reorientation to heterosexuality" yet and can't "embrace celibacy as a way of life," you are subject to disciplinary action but you aren't being marginalized, demeaned, or mistreated by an organization whose mission statement says they meet human needs without discrimination. No way.

If you think that love and being treated equally are human needs and denying your employees access to these things when you exist on funding from people who probably don't know exactly what you are hiding behind all those fake inclusive sounding words is wrong:

The Salvation Army can't exist unless it gets donations. It came up with all these fake inclusive words because it knows that if word gets out they will discipline gay people for not being celibate, a whole lot less people are going to donate to them. The sooner they get the message that the majority of people in this country are not going to stand for these attitudes from somewhere they donate to the better. Evolve or become extinct. 

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

What We Have Here Is a Failure to Communicate

Governor McCrory gave a news conference today. You can watch the whole thing here. At 31:20 the Governor is asked a question about people who disagree with him and here is how he answered it:

"I'd like them to be part of the solution. And I welcome people who disagree with our policy stances to come up with ideas. And don't just tell us. I surround myself with problem solvers and that includes critics and allies alike. And what I want to encourage them to do is...I'm glad to meet with them if they have viable solutions to some very complex problems in NC and then we can agree or disagree on the solution. But I don't think anyone disagrees with the ultimate outcome. I've had some wonderful meetings in the Governor's office with some activists and some other people throughout the state and just private meetings away from the cameras discussing some of the serious issues we're dealing with and some of the potential solutions. But I think one area we all need to improve on is dialogue and conversation and not political soundbites against each other. And I would say that not only to ourselves and to my critics, but to members of the media. We all at times encourage that. I'm a big advocate of dialogue with people I disagree with but I'm more of an advocate of solutions."

This is after last month, when the Governor responded to my request to meet with him in an interview with WFMY by telling the lies that I am part of a publicity stunt, that I was outside his mansion gates hungry, and that my mom is "very strong activist" with MoveOn.

Solutions? How about we don't call young North Carolinians who are seeking the solutions and dialogue the Governor is such a big advocate of props. There's a solution.

I would love to hear the Governor's solutions on encouraging young people to take part in our government, since pre-registering to vote is a "bureaucratic burden." In case the Governor needs any ideas, the non-partisan Commission on Youth Voting and Civic Knowledge issued a report with a lot of great ideas.

Thursday, January 9, 2014

The Only Thing We Have to Fear

Francis De Luca likes to call pre-registration, "the pedophilia enabling act."

From Moyers and Company, this is "State of Conflict: North Carolina"
Start watching at 32:48

"Where in the world can I go, on a government website, and find a list of 16 year olds and their home addresses?"

That's kind of creepy.

But if you call up the Board of Elections and ask them if the applications of teenagers who pre-registered, the pending applications, are included when you request a list of registered voters...

The answer is no.

You don't have to be afraid of democracy.

You should be afraid that someone would use this argument to discourage you from participating in it.

Meddling kids.