Usually, I like reading Jack Cafferty, but this post just pisses me off. I've read this man's life story in It's Getting Ugly Out There, so I know he's not saying this from a position of having anything handed to him in life. But Jack Cafferty could probably use some reminding of a few things:
1- His job is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. His freedom, as well as his boss's freedom, to do the stories they want to do the way they want to do them may not be abridged by Congress and can only be removed for inaccuracies or dishonesty.
2- Jack got his start on public airwaves. They are rented out for free to networks/stations, in exchange for public service announcements and excluding obscenity.
It's almost as if Jack's opportunity to work his way up from a hellish childhood was made possible by someone watching over.... and protecting his chosen industry.... almost... sort of like... a fucking nanny.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
They're not pro-life, they're anti-woman
Wow. South Dakota is in some sort of frenzy to earn my contempt. And earned it the state has. Apparently, some moron with more Bibles than brain cells has decided that abortion providers have got to go. But don't worry, ladies. This bill isn't about killing abortionists, it's about giving you the right to defend your unborn child. Because the way Phil Jensen describes it, when a man is trying to cut open your abdomen to perform an abortion on you without your consent, you would NOT be legally allowed to defend YOURSELF. What would we do without that son of a whore defender of women's rights to carry babies? Women apparently had no right to bodily integrity until Phil Jensen came around. Well, let's be honest. What women in SD would be allowed to defend is their unborn child, not themselves. Is THAT legal in South Dakota? Or is right to self-defense one of those things only men get?
Here's why there's no agreeing with anti-choicers, and I will never call them pro-life. First of all, most anti-choicers support lots of ways for people to die- as collateral damage, on death row, for example. So, they're not really pro-life. But Phil Jensen has revealed to all just how anti-woman they are: if a pregnant woman already has the right to defend herself from bodily harm, why would we even need this law? Because to Phil Jensen, women do not have bodily integrity. In the anti-choice movement, women's bodies are not their own and Phil and his fellow Bible-beaters will never acknowledge this.
And their is no compromise position with these people. Because to people who don't believe that my body belongs to me, there is no intrusion on my privacy and dignity these people will not push. And enforce, through 'justifiable homicide'. Fuck you, Will Saletan. Maybe you should have listened to George Carlin more, and Jim Wallis less.
Here's why there's no agreeing with anti-choicers, and I will never call them pro-life. First of all, most anti-choicers support lots of ways for people to die- as collateral damage, on death row, for example. So, they're not really pro-life. But Phil Jensen has revealed to all just how anti-woman they are: if a pregnant woman already has the right to defend herself from bodily harm, why would we even need this law? Because to Phil Jensen, women do not have bodily integrity. In the anti-choice movement, women's bodies are not their own and Phil and his fellow Bible-beaters will never acknowledge this.
And their is no compromise position with these people. Because to people who don't believe that my body belongs to me, there is no intrusion on my privacy and dignity these people will not push. And enforce, through 'justifiable homicide'. Fuck you, Will Saletan. Maybe you should have listened to George Carlin more, and Jim Wallis less.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)