Timeliness and Denial

I was interested this morning to see a friend post a picture of a Facebook conversation in which someone posted one of those status updates that make the rounds. A brief statement followed by "if you have a whatever who means this to you please repost this as your status" type of update. The thing is, this update left out a lot of important information and was very misleading. Someone addressed this and provided sources to back up their numbers. Well, here...check it out for yourself. This was a great example of people forwarding or passing on misleading information without doing proper research. I saw it all the time during the election, and I Snopesed plenty and sent them right back. We are all misled occasionally (think of the recent rumor that John Roberts was retiring...if only), but to forward these things willy-nilly without bothering to check the veracity is...well, frankly, I think it's dishonest. Or at the very least, lazy.

I saw this early in the morning, and cut off my legs and call me Shorty, if one of my "friends" didn't post that exact bullshit as her status update a little bit later! Seeing as I had some valuable information at my disposal—how serendipitous!—I thought I would share the above picture, so I posted the link in a comment. The comment back from her was about the "useless and excess weaponry" remark. I commented back that that wasn't the pertinent part there (and added an LOL to show that I was not trying to be antagonistic). The next comment from her was a diatribe against welfare recipients, including "generations of sucking off the system, living the American Dream on someone elses labor. Healthcare, foodstamps, housing, kids on free breakfast and lunches, waived school fees...they have better benefits than the working people." Nice. I again pointed out that she was ignoring the pertinent part concerning the large increases in benefits for military personnel and their families that President Obama has called for in his 2011 budget, which is what her original update concerned.

This was again ignored in favor of a couple of more rants about those nasty welfare types. She wrapped it all up neat and tidy with this:

Beth, you and I won't agree on any part of Obama. I think he's a joke and the biggest mistake we've made. My hope through the next three years is that the dumbasses that voted this liberal ass into office go down with him.

For some reason, the entire thread got removed, apparently by Facebook. (Perhaps it was her strong language regarding welfare recipients?) When I tried to leave a further comment on her page, she had unfriended me.

This might come as a surprise to some of you, but I can be one persistent bitch when I want to be, especially when it comes to debate. I will prove my point. So I sent her a message on Facebook, and I think I'll go ahead and include the entire thing here:

I know I'm not going to convince you to not hate Obama; I wasn't even trying. However, I found it interesting that you were unable or unwilling to accept that your original update about the raise military members were getting left out an important part of the equation: the large increases in their benefits that our President built into the 2011 budget.

I defend your right to say whatever you want, but ignoring the facts in order to maintain your worldview doesn't change those facts or the numbers. The original post was misleading and left out important information. I merely supplied that information.

I even defend your right to call me a "dumbass" for voting him into office, along with 69,456,896 of my fellow Americans. However, hoping that all of us will "go down with him" seems more than a little mean-spirited to me, and considering what a large, tax-paying portion of the population we make up, it would probably have a significant impact on our country.

The percentage of our budget spent on military/defense is much larger than that spent on welfare and social programs. That's a fact.

I also find it interesting that you defriended me. Sorry that you can't handle an opposing viewpoint, especially one that was merely trying to tell the truth about a misleading piece of information.

I included a graph of the President's 2011 budget that showed the percentages allotted to various programs and agencies, and told her and her husband to take care.

I'm writing about this because I find it a fascinating phenomenon to see someone completely ignore the facts in order to maintain the status quo in their own mind. When the facts contradict what they have based their reality upon, they simply turn their heads away and use diversion tactics, changing the subject completely. I was also not antagonistic in any way, shape, or form. Although I can be very vocal in my criticism when I write about things here, this is my own forum and my own opinion. If I am debating with someone, I try to stay respectful, and I certainly don't resort to calling them a "dumbass." At least not to their face.

I merely recognized that her status update was incomplete and misleading, and provided information that told the rest of the story. Isn't it fascinating that she didn't want to hear it? I've written about cognitive dissonance before, and it seems to me that this "friend" is suffering from a big ol' stinking pile of cognitive dissonance. I've unfriended people on rare occasion, but only when they've gotten shitty with me, such as flat out saying, "You're wrong." I did nothing like that in this case, and I think it speaks volumes about this person that they simply didn't want to hear the truth. For shame.

Ah well, as another friend pointed out, I've made other, better friends here and on Facebook. Those who think logically, for example, and those who aren't so close-minded and blinded by their hatred of someone that they refuse to see the facts in front of their face. Oh, and those who have compassion for others and realize that just because they've got a nice house and great benefits and a pretty comfortable existence (Did I mention that I met this person on a cruise, and they've gone on at least a dozen of them? Yeah.), it doesn't mean that they can or should forget about those who are less fortunate and can't afford that nice house, or those great benefits, or can't afford to go visit family in another state, let alone go on multiple fucking cruises. To assume that every person who is on welfare is on it because they want to be, or that they are all a bunch of parasitic leeches, is an insult to those who are struggling.

Am I upset about this turn of events? Not in the least. I was disgusted by her refusal to acknowledge the truth, and even more disgusted by the hateful prejudice that she exhibited with her words. I just hope that my words will make her think. But I doubt it.

I'll let you know if I hear back from her...but I doubt that will happen, either.

In this case, I don’t mind being minus one.

A difference in philosophy

Before I get to that, I should warn you that after my little rant yesterday, my stalker has been busy checking the profiles of some of those who commented. Yes, she's that obsessed. I don't think she'll bother you, but I did want to give you a heads-up in case she were to leave comments on your blogs or try to contact you. If that happens, I apologize sincerely for putting you into her sights. Please forgive me.

It was rather a lively morning on Facebook, where I managed to piss someone off with a comment concerning Palin having five kids...something about throwing a hot dog down a hallway...but the specifics don't matter. Suddenly I was insulting women who have had kids, and it was suggested that maybe we should all just make fun of weak male politicians by calling them pussies. I said yeah, I do that already (and it's not reserved just for politicians), and if someone is being a jerk, I sometimes call them a dick. I think I've got the full spectrum of genitalia covered. Criminy...it's an old joke, one that's been around for years. I know I have a perverse and warped sense of humor, but as I was writing to a friend last night, laughter can do a lot to make things better. It may not change the world, but it certainly makes things much easier to deal with, and allows us to forge ahead.

Then, on the same guy's thread (Chuck E. Jesus, which is as brilliant a name as I've heard), I got into a health care discussion. Chuck E. and I are of like minds when it comes to many topics, and so is his wife, Bride of Chucky. The three of us sort of dogpiled the other guy...he kept throwing the same GOP talking points at us (odd, since it turned out he is a libertarian), and we kept knocking them down. It was the usual...start with a clean slate, start over, fresh sheet of paper, let's talk about this...blahbitty blah blah blah.

As the President pointed out the other day, we have talked about this for a fucking year. (Well, the F-bomb is mine, not his.) We've been talking about it for decades, actually. I'm to the point where I don't want to hear the lame excuses. Today I wrote to my Congressman and my Democratic Senator (the Republican is a lost cause), and I hope you'll consider writing to yours, no matter which side you are on. The bottom line is are we going to begin to take care of all of our citizens, or are we going to continue to let them die because they can't afford health care? That's really what it comes down to, you know. I suppose it would be easy to sit back and say, "Hey, I've got my health care insurance. That's all that matters to me." Well, it's not all that matters to me, not by a long shot. It matters to me that people are hurting, that people are going broke, that people are dying, all because they can't afford health insurance. It matters to me that people aren't getting preventive care. Diabetics losing toes or limbs because they can't get regular checkups or afford their testing supplies; people unable to get approval for surgeries that would ease their chronic pain; people not getting treatment for tuberculosis and infecting countless others who come into contact with them; people ignoring symptoms and not going to the doctor until they can't stand it anymore and go in only to find out that they've got terminal cancer, one that would have been treatable if it had been caught a year ago.

Think I'm exaggerating? I'm not. This is going on every fucking day, right here in our country. If you can sit back and be complacent about it, and say, "Oh, let's talk about this some more. We haven't talked about it enough," then I seriously wonder about you, and I say, "Shame on you." And shame on our country for not doing what every other industrialized nation did years ago. It's time to stop the arguments and get it through our collective thick skulls that we cannot continue to allow people to suffer and die because we want to talk about it some more. The time for talking is done. The time for action is now.

Let's get this done.

This is beyond lame

My stalker and her stalker sister are still at it. Checking me multiple times a day, and it looks like their stalker mom is occasionally joining in on the fun. The original stalker seems to have found me on Facebook, too, although I have my privacy settings fairly narrow, so she shouldn't be able to see too much there. Seriously, you have to get the whole family in on it? What is wrong with you all? Have you thought about exploring that?

Yeah, it's a public blog, yeah, I'm out there on Facebook, yeah, I suppose you could dig up some dirt on me if you wanted to...but for chrissake, what the fuck is wrong with you that you are so obsessed with me? Honestly, have you asked yourself that? Have you ever thought that you might have a bit of a problem to be so obsessed with someone who doesn't speak to you, doesn't email you, doesn't deal with you in any way, is no longer a part of your life except in your own pathetic and bovine spongiform mind?

I wonder what you do when you look at what I write here. Do you seethe at whatever my opinions might be? Do you foam at the mouth when you see my commie godless secular humanistic homersextical-lovin' writings? I can't help but wonder what you do when you see pictures of me. Do you enlarge those pictures and pore over them obsessively? Do you reach out to the screen and touch my cheek or my lips? Do you look into my eyes on your screen and think that I'm taunting you or trying to send you a message? Do you want me? Is that what it is? Remember...that's a sin and an abomination in your god's eyes.

Honestly, I question your mental well-being, and I feel sorry for those who have to be around you, because I'm guessing that you are making life a living hell for them, and that they wish you'd stop being such a bitch. They probably even look forward to the day when they can get away from you. Your continued obsession with me is illogical, irrational, and incredibly pathetic. You can keep checking me all you want, because I'm not taking this blog private. But you seriously need to get a grip and think about why you can't quit me. You've got a problem and you need to deal with it, because it's obvious that you are obsessed with me. Maybe it's time to adjust the meds, or get back on them if you're off of them. Just sayin'.

Whelmed

Maybe not overwhelmed, but definitely whelmed.

I've noticed that I'm not the only one whose blogging has decreased. I was shocked to see that it's been a week since I wrote--I was pretty prolific for a while there! There are multiple reasons, including a general malaise that has been with me all winter, as well as a preoccupation with Facebook friends and what is being discussed there. There is a pleasant little group of us that share political and religious articles and opinions, and sometimes just fun things. I think that's another reason I haven't been writing much lately; sometimes I just need a break from the serious stuff, and I'm not one to write here often about my latest trip to Wal-Mart (unless it's to write about something weird/funny/annoying that happened). Most entries lately end up being serious and lengthy (sometimes seriously lengthy), and I spend two or three hours putting them all together. So yes, I'm whelmed.

I'm not stopping--you can't get rid of me that easily--but I'm not going to feel guilty about not writing daily or even every other day. It will happen when it happens.

I did spend several hours on Thursday watching the health care summit. I was doing other things, too, but I did have it on all day and it was pretty clear right off the bat that nothing was going to come of it, other than a clear indicator of just how deep the partisan divide is. A never-the-twain-shall-meet sort of divide. The GOP immediately called for the complete scrapping of the current bill and to start over. The Democrats said no, there are good things in there that we both agree on, and starting over will delay this even more. You can guess which side I came down on. Anytime someone issues an ultimatum, you know there are power issues there. I've always found the attitude of "Do this or we won't cooperate" to be bullying tactics.

An even bigger difference, to me, was the deep and abiding difference in philosophies. The GOP seems to believe that it's okay for tens of millions of Americans to be uninsured. The Democrats believe it is a moral obligation to care for all of our citizens, or to at least make a concerted and serious start on getting there. Again, no surprise how I feel about it. I've written about this numerous times. To me, it's not just a matter of making sure that everyone has access to affordable health care; it's a way to bring about lower costs for everyone and to break the stranglehold the insurance companies have on our entire country. Someone brought up one of the standard GOP arguments, that everyone does have access to care in our emergency rooms. It can't be any simpler: such visits drive our costs through the roof, and it's something that is passed along to each and every one of us. I would be happy to pay a little more to ensure that people get preventive health care so that they don't have to make visits to the emergency room.

Someone else brought up the recent news item that one of Canada's provincial premiers came to the States to get a heart procedure. I'm not sure of the entire circumstances of why he came here for the procedure, but Obama's response was the same as mine was when I heard it. Sure, it's great that someone can afford to go to another country for a procedure he needs, if that's what he desires, but a Canadian premier is far from an average-income American worker. People like that don't have the money to get procedures here. That's the whole fucking point! There are some people that save up to travel to Mexico or India to get procedures that they can't afford to get in their own country. We do have great health care here...but what good does it do people if they can't afford it, or lose their home in order to get a life-saving procedure?

I still say we need to look to the north and model our system after Canada's, but I'm afraid that will never happen. The insurance companies are too firmly entrenched as the arbiters of who gets care and who doesn't (talk about coming between you and your doctor!), not to mention firmly entrenched in the deep pockets of some lawmakers. The GOP doesn't seem overly concerned about trying to get more people insured; their plan would add an additional, whopping three million to the ranks of insured. I guess the other 27 million can go fuck themselves, eh? Oh, it's okay...they should be fine. As long as they don't get sick.

I find it all very disheartening and very frustrating.

So there's the serious stuff for today. In the not-so-serious arena, I've been enjoying the Olympics immensely, and speaking of Canada, I'm really looking forward to Sunday's gold medal game in hockey between the US and Canada! It's going to be so exciting, and just between you and me and everyone who read it on Facebook, I'm kind of cheering for Canada. Hockey is their game, man, and it's their Olympics...how awesome would it be for them to win the gold? I wasn't upset when New Orleans beat my Colts in the Super Bowl because I knew how much it meant to NOLA; I have the same feeling about this hockey game. It would be a wonderful ending for the host country, the cherry on top of the whipped cream for them. Or maybe the maple leaf on top. :) I've really been enjoying the hockey games, and I never thought I would get into the game that much. It's a lot of fun!

There was controversy on Friday when the Canadian women's hockey team won the gold, then after the medal ceremony, were photographed on the ice smoking cigars and drinking Molson and champagne. Haha! I have no problem with that, and thought "more power to you!" To me, it's a non-issue. You see all kinds of celebrations after big wins in baseball, football, whatever, with champagne spraying everywhere. Women do it and it's tacky or undignified? Really? Winning a gold medal is a big deal (especially if you're Canadian and win it in hockey), and I say have a ball and celebrate your victory. If you want to do it with beer, champagne, and cigars, I dig where you're coming from.

Speaking of beer, champagne, and cigars (or at least the first one), it's a Rock Band party at my sister's tonight. I'll have my game on, as well as my Cowbell Hero T-shirt. Should be a good time, and if necessary, I've got Bloody Mary fixins for tomorrow. ;)

Addendum

Thanks for the tip, Laurel!

Watch the video of Seth McFarlane talking to Bill Maher about "The Family Guy" episode.

I love Maher's line that Palin is the "queen of fake outrage." I've said the same thing, that she gloms onto whatever statement she thinks she can use to generate some sympathy and publicity. McFarlane also has a good line about Bush. Good stuff!

An ultimate smackdown

A few days ago, I wrote about Sarah Palin's (as well as her daughter Bristol's) objection to an episode of "The Family Guy," in which a character with Down syndrome appeared. The Palins felt that the writers were ridiculing people with Down's, including their son/brother, Trig. They called out the show and its writers on Palin's Facebook page, and although Seth McFarlane has remained silent on the matter, a statement was issued by the actress who voiced the character with Down's on the show.

My name is Andrea Fay Friedman. I was born with Down syndrome. I played the role of Ellen on the "Extra Large Medium" episode of Family Guy that was broadcast on Valentine's day. Although they gave me red hair on the show, I am really a blonde. I also wore a red wig for my role in " Smudge" but I was a blonde in "Life Goes On". I guess former Governor Palin does not have a sense of humor. I thought the line "I am the daughter of the former governor of Alaska" was very funny. I think the word is "sarcasm".

In my family we think laughing is good. My parents raised me to have a sense of humor and to live a normal life. My mother did not carry me around under her arm like a loaf of French bread the way former Governor Palin carries her son Trig around looking for sympathy and votes.

[snicker]

There was more from an interview with Ms. Friedman:

Q. When did you find out about the reaction that the episode elicited from Sarah Palin and her family?

A. [laughs] That I did not even know about until my mom told me, “You’re on Channel 4!” And when I watched on Channel 4, on “Extra,” and I saw Sarah Palin with her son Trig. I’m like, “I’m not Trig. This is my life.” I was making fun of Sarah Palin, but not her son.

Q. Do you agree with what she and her daughter Bristol were saying, that the character and the jokes were insulting to people with Down syndrome?

A. It’s not really an insult. I was doing my role, I’m an actor. I’m entitled to say something. It was really funny. I was laughing at it. I had a nice time doing voiceover. It was my first time doing a voiceover, and I had fun.

Did you see that part about how the actress actually has Down syndrome? That's kind of pertinent here.

You see, Ms. Friedman is out there making a living as an actress. She and her family have not let her Down's syndrome keep her from leading a productive and happy life. She also apparently has quite a sense of humor (I love the line about the loaf of French bread), and flat-out says that she was making fun of Palin herself, not her son with Down's. I'm thinking Palin could learn a lesson from this young lady.

This really is the ultimate smackdown, because if Palin stuck with her usual modus operandi of flogging a dead horse, she'd fire back another retort and not let the issue die the quick death it deserves (think of her continued argument with David Letterman after he apologized for his remarks concerning her daughter--which were about the one that really was knocked up, not the younger one). However, if she does that, she'll be arguing with a person with Down's...a person who is standing up for herself and the comedy show on which she appeared, and is doing quite well for herself. Palin's outrage at the perceived disrespect shown to those with Down's is null and void after a person with Down's herself said that she (Palin) has no sense of humor, doesn't get sarcasm, and uses her own son as a prop for sympathy and political gain.

Friedman may have Down's, but her remarks are nothing short of brilliant in their sheer shut-the-fuck-upness. A toast to you, Ms. Friedman!

I'll be curious to see if Palin is able to let this one go. She's certainly not known for letting go of grudges, as McCain's campaign staff can attest to. There have been no further statements about the "issue" on her Facebook page. She did make an appearance on O'Reilly's show (I don't know if it happened before or after Friedman's statement), in which they engaged in an orgy of mutual masturbation, O'Reilly feeding her paranoia and showing that he shares the missing sense of humor gene by saying that the episode was "pretty nasty" and calling Seth McFarlane a "hater." Palin showed disdain for "Fox Hollywood," I guess because they fall into that category of coastal elitists (East coast, West coast, it doesn't matter...none of them are "real Americans," anyway).

I'm sure that in the near future, Sarah will find other things about which to generate some self-righteous and self-promoting outrage, but maybe this time Palin’s inner censor will make a rare appearance and it will

Palin vs a Cartoon

No lie. In her latest manufactured outrage incident, she takes on not David Letterman, not Rahm Emanuel, not even what she so cleverly calls the "lamestream media." This time she takes on the show "The Family Guy." You know...the animated series? The one without real people?

If you haven't heard about it, in the episode in question, there is a character with Down syndrome. Palin took offense at this, saying that it was making fun of her son, and was apparently so upset (it was a "kick in the gut," she said) that she couldn't think straight (*snort* Like that's new.) and had her daughter Bristol write something about it.

Insults directed at [my] youngest brother hurt too much for us to remain silent. People with special needs face challenges that many of us will never confront, and yet they are some of the kindest and most loving people you'll ever meet. As a culture shouldn't we be willing to say that some things just are not funny? If the writers of a particularly pathetic cartoon show thought they were being clever in mocking my brother and my family yesterday, they failed.

In the interest of thorough research, I found the episode online and watched it. Extra Large Medium was the title, if you'd care to check it out yourself. I know that some of these animated shows can be pretty extreme (I love "South Park"), but I have never watched "The Family Guy," although my friend Darren has said it is hilarious. For whatever reason, I just never got into watching it. I was curious to watch this episode, to see if Darren was right, and to see if Palin was justified in being offended. In my opinion, chalk one up for Darren and give Palin a big fat zero.

It was hilarious, and I laughed out loud at several points. As far as insulting people with Down syndrome, I didn't see that at all. In fact, it was more flattering, in that the teenage son has a crush on a girl at school, thinks she's beautiful and hot and wonderful, and gets up the courage to ask her out. And, oh yeah, she has Down syndrome. When they go on a date, he asks what her parents do, and she says her Dad is an accountant and her Mom is "the former governor of Alaska." (That's one of the parts at which I laughed out loud.) A-ha! Now I get it. Palin wasn't insulted so much because they were ridiculing her special needs son; she was insulted because they were ridiculing her. Hey Palin, remember that satire thingy that you thought was so funny and appropriate when you mistakenly thought Rush Limbaugh used it? [laughing]

As the episode goes on, the Down syndrome girl turns out to be a royal bitch, the teenage son is disappointed, and makes what I think is a very pertinent point. He tells her that he thought people like her were supposed to be special, but they aren't...they're just like the rest of us. In other words, they can be assholes, too.

I've maintained that for years. Being physically handicapped, intellectually disabled, a war veteran, terminally ill, or what have you, does not necessarily impart sainthood upon you. I've encountered some real jerks along the way who have had to deal with some of those things. To accept that they can be bitter, angry, moody—to accept that they can be assholes, too—seems to me to be more accepting of them as a part of the community, to not set them apart as something other than potential assholes, just like us. haha

I hesitate to try to see a broader meaning in everything I watch—sometimes it's just funny—but I thought this episode had a nice, subtle message. I saw no ridicule towards those with Down syndrome whatsoever in what they aired, only a dig at Palin herself. If she continues to be insulted by such things (and it was only one line in the entire episode), she's going to have a miserable life being in the public eye. Comedy, satire, cartoons...it's a part of life, and if you put yourself out there, you're going to be a target. Arguing with a cartoon just makes you look even more ridiculous.