I am the honorable flamingo. What you read here might make you smile, make you think, or make you wonder. This is the world as I see it, from the view of a pink, long legged, slightly awkward bird.

Friday, November 30, 2007

CNN Debate - Gays In The Military

I watched the Youtube Republican debate Wednesday, and there was one answer in particular that I found rather objectionable. So I've decided to make a video of it, with commentary interspersed. The quality probably isn't that good, but it's mostly because I don't care and I didn't want to spend hours making something decent. Enjoy.


video

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Sexism In The Main-Stream Media

A while back, there was a large uproar over the possibility that Rosie O'Donnell might be offered her own show on MSNBC. Mostly it was conservative commentators who objected to her extreme political views, and because they firmly believe that the only idiocy fit for the airwaves is theirs.

For a while, the majority seemed to believe that she would get her program, but I knew from the beginning that this would not be the case. It isn't that there is not room for polarizing viewpoints in network news, but that there is no room for ugly women with polarizing viewpoints in network news.

To demonstrate my point, I have conducted a poorly researched and most likely completely biased investigation into the hiring of only attractive women as anchors or commentators. First, take a look at this selection of photos of anchors and reporters from the three major news networks.
Ok, so Michelle Malkin may actually be a man, but the rest are definitely legitimate. Now let's take a moment to compare those women to this picture of Rosie O'Donnell.

I think it is easy to see why she wouldn't quite "fit" in the group above (pun intended of course).

We might expect that this phenomenon of hiring only the photogenic to do the news is not a gender biased system, so I decided to do a little digging. Needless to say, I was horrified at what I found.
Sexism is truly alive and well in our cable networks.

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Jesus For Giuliani!

That's right, Pat Robertson, the well known Christian leader has come out in full support of Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani. Fitting too, as the announcement came only a few days after Satan, known to some as the "Prince of Darkness" or "Bill Clinton" announced he would fully support the Democratic nominee. Last weekend Osama bin Laden also made a similar statement, although he did so through a press release.

Robertson's endorsement is one that is coveted among Republicans, and this dealt a blow to Mitt Romney, who had been trying to court conservative Christians during his campaign. After all, who wouldn't want the be backed by a guy who has the power to pray a hurricane away from his business headquarters. Never mind the eight people that hurricane killed when it hit the coast above Virginia Beach, they were probably all homosexuals. That's the kind of uniting force Republicans need, and there is no more morally upstanding person to get it from than a guy who has said that homosexuality could cause massive natural disasters and "possibly a meteor."

Although Robertson and Giuliani don't always see eye-to-eye on social issues, many saw this as an important endorsement for national security reasons. In fact, Robertson himself said that the issue differences "pale in comparison" to the importance of the global war on terror. That's a good point, because as we all know, there is no more staunch advocate of perpetual war than Jesus Christ. It's a good thing Robertson finally told people of faith who they could vote for, they were getting anxious.

Now, if you don't mind, I had better wrap this up before Mr. Robertson prays an earthquake into my home.

Monday, November 12, 2007

Three Reasons Hilary Clinton Will Be President

Just to let everyone know, I don't plan on voting for Hilary Clinton next year, but based on careful analysis of key issues, I've concluded that she has the best chance of being President. Here I will run down the three most important issues, and then outline why she is in the best position to come out on top.

Hair
There is no doubt about it, Presidential hair is one of the key factors in earning election in the United States, and Hilary has it. Her 'doo' has just the right amount of bounce and liveliness, without at the same time looking pompous. Historically, hair has been a huge factor in the election of U.S. Presidents. For instance, take a look at this photo of Martin van Buren. Many political analysts claim that Van Buren only lasted one term because of the recession and resulting poor economy, but I think we know differently. We need only look at the top of his head. But, it is important to note that John Edwards and Mitt Romney also have Presidential hair, so we must continue.

Look
There has been much debate over whether or not the United States is ready for a woman President. Some people have been divided over this issue, but I think there is one thing we can all agree on: America isn't ready for an attractive woman President. Here Hilary fits the bill perfectly. We need a President who will be effective in reforming the health care system, while at the same time not raising red flags from your wife or girlfriend over your sudden interest in the State of the Union address. I think it's safe to say that Hilary Clinton will do neither. However, on this list we could also include Rudy Giuliani or Chris Dodd, and they have four wives between the two of them to prove it.

She's No Pushover
There has been speculation recently about whether or not Hilary Clinton is too weak to be President. Specifically, after she fumbled the immigration question in the debate and called it unfair, many have asked "if she can't handle Tim Russert, how can she handle Ahmadinejad." I don't think these people are looking at all the facts. Hilary Clinton refused oral sex to the most powerful man in the country. This certainly proves she is no pushover, because we know Bill was asking. So, how will she handle Ahmadinejad? Personally, I don't know, but I'm sure it won't be with fellatio.

So there, if you aren't now convinced that Hilary Clinton will be the next President, than I'm not sure what else I can do. I think I've provided an airtight case and laid out pretty much all her most impressive credentials. Now, I have to go send this to the Fox News Channel. Maybe they'll offer me a job. Hell, I can't be any less qualified than Brit Hume.

Saturday, November 10, 2007

Bill O'Reilly Answers My Mail...And Takes It Out Of Context

Bill O'Reilly answered my letter on his November 7th show. I thought I should put it up here, unfortunately, I only have audio. By the way, he got my name wrong too.



I wrote my letter in response to a segment he did on the previous night's show about the torturing of captives. In that context, I thought it was pretty clear that by "enemies" I meant those that we had captured, but I guess I was wrong. The bombings of Japan and Nazi Germany during WWII were just acts of war, however, the torturing of helpless captives is never justified.

I should also clarify that nowhere in my letter did I mention "dead Americans". The "Americans" portion of that was a complete fabrication. What I wrote was "Your 'families dead in the streets' argument is merely fear-mongering." This was in response to an argument Bill had with Liz Wiehl. He said something to the effect of "So your family is lying dead in the streets and you won't allow us to use harsh interrogation methods." The primary objection of my letter was this message of "allow torture or your family will be slaughtered." That is fear-mongering.

Since I have really no authority to speak on this subject, and it is just my word against Bill's when I say torture is immoral and it doesn't work, I've decided to bring in an expert. Retired Army Colonel Stuart Herrington worked as an interrogator in Vietnam, Panama, and during the Gulf War with Iraq. He was also asked to help train Iraq-bound interrogators in the art of non-coercive interrogation. I will use his words to support my argument now.

"In interrogation centers I ran, we called prisoners "guests" and extended military courtesies, such as saluting captured officers. We strove to undermine a prisoner's belief system, which we knew instructed him that Americans are unschooled infidels who would bully him and resort to intimidation, threats and brutality."

Can you imagine a 19 or 20 year old Al-Qaeda fighter, captured on the battlefield, sitting in the interrogation room? A person that has been indoctrinated with the idea that Americans are pure evil, and will brutalize him mercilessly. If we merely strap him to a board and pretend to drown him, it does nothing but reinforce these beliefs. He can say to himself, "they are exactly as I thought they were." However, treating a captive with respect, probably more than he ever received from terrorist leaders, will go farther to show him Americans are not bad than electricity applied to the genitals ever could.

"But the so-called ticking time bomb scenario is a Hollywood construct that I never encountered in my 30-year career."

Funny, a 30 year career that has never encountered this situation, and yet every question about torture given to Presidential candidates seems to focus on it.

Finally, he ends with a story from the Gulf War, about an Iraqi general who was interrogated not with hostility, but with respect and skill.

"An Iraqi general, captured and humiliated during Operation Desert Storm, is initially frightened and defiant but eventually cooperates, knowing that Saddam Hussein's penalty for treason was certain death. Before repatriation, the general hands his captor his prayer beads and a scrap of paper bearing an address, saying with emotion, 'Our Islamic custom requires that we show gratitude to those who bestow kindness and mercy. These beads comforted me through your Air Force's fierce bombings for 39 days, but they are all I have. When Saddam is gone, please come to my home. You will be an honored guest and we will slaughter a lamb to welcome you.'"

You can read the full article from the Colonel here.

I guess not everyone agrees with you Mr. O'Reilly.

When we use the fear of terrorism to justify torture, we become a little bit like the terrorists that we are trying to defeat. We do their job for them, and in fact do far more damage to ourselves than they ever could.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose out freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." - Abraham Lincoln

Thursday, November 01, 2007

Dog's Bark Worse Than His Bite?

The A&E Show "Dog the Bounty Hunter" has been put on hold in the aftermath of a racist tirade by the show's star, Duane "Dog" Chapman. The incident began with a recorder telephone conversation in which Chapman referred to his son's girlfriend as a f------ n-----. He said that he refused to risk his entire career on her hearing him use the word n------ and turning it over to "The Enquirer." The Enquirer released the tape earlier this week. This sort of irony is really only fitting for a guy who's "hit" show is on a network that is only watched by old men who can't get out of their chair to change the channel.

But, is it real any surprise that the guy with the leather vest with no shirt underneath and the largest mullet in history harbors some racial bias? He even has to employ armbands just to cover the swastika tattoos on his arms (ok, so I don't know they are swastikas, but until I prove otherwise, I'm going to say they are). His entire persona oozes paranoid white guy with superiority complex, and we are supposed to be surprised when he is actually like that?

However, if the show is ever put back on the air, this may actually help Dog's ratings. After all, who more than white supremacists would like to see a muscular half naked-man running around and capturing muscular, half-naked men of occasional mixed race. If that isn't a KKK TV night/orgy, I don't know what is.

Unfortunately, the real fall-out in this case could be between father and son. The prevailing idea is that Dog's son is the one who released the tape in the first place, and probably cost his father a career, along with several of his friends of color (just kidding, I'm pretty sure Dog doesn't have any friends of color). If his son did hand out the tape, however, it sort of ruins that old adage, "the family who tracks down criminals and then takes part in highly suggestive heart-to-heart talks with them together, stays together."