On Friday, co-host of MSNBC’s The Cycle, Krystal Ball,
introduced a online-only feature called “Political Playground” on her
program which she said focused on marriage equality issues. In the
feature, Ball asks her young daughter to reveal what she understands
about marriage and asks if she would “marry a girl” when she gets older.
In the online video, Ball asks her daughter to expound on her
thoughts on marriage and asked, if she was in love with a girl, would
she marry that girl. Ball’s daughter seemed well-informed about the
state of same-sex marriage laws when she revealed that she could only
marry a same-sex partner in the state of New York.
“And that’s good, because you want people to marry who they’re in love with, right?” Ball asked.
“Yeah,” her daughter replied.
Ball and her daughter agreed that other states which have not yet
legalized same-sex marriage should do so.
“That’s crazy!” Ball’s
daughter exclaimed when she heard that other states continue to not
recognize same-sex marriages.
This isn't about politics and it certainly isn't about machismo and/or any college basketball player's degree of masculinity as FOX's "The Five" co-host Eric Bolling would like you to think it's about. This is about a grown man, a professional college coach, an idiot trusted with the lives of 12 college kids (and yes, till they're 21, they are still kids) hurling vitriol, throwing a basketball at the heads of his players, using abusive language to embarrass and supposedly "motivate" them and worst of all physically assaulting his players when they mess a play up...in practice no less. Put aside the fact that there are more things in life than sports.
Bolling, in his insane defense of Mike Rice, said that "I’ve played for a lot of coaches like that. And let me tell you something: the best coaches are coaches like that.” Yet, other than maybe Bobby Knight, I can't recall any successful, college coach ever acting in a despicable fashion (mind you. Rice's record in 3 years at Rutgers was 44-51) towards his players like this. Not Coach K, Not Roy Williams. Not Jim Boeheim. None.
But then no coach has a right to put his hands on a player in a threatening manner. No parent should have to worry about their child being abused by their coach. Bottom line, Mike Rice deserved to be fired and until he gets some serious anger management therapy, he should never be allowed to coach again:
Rice was fired by Rutgers this week after ESPN footage showed him
physically disciplining his athletes while shouting homophobic slurs at
them. Off the bat, Bolling clarified his earlier remarks
to Kelly by noting that he does not condone the coach’s language
whatsoever, but reiterated that he believes Rice should not have been
fired for the pushing and shoving of players as part of disciplinary
coaching.
“No question he’s a tough coach,” Bolling said. “I’ve played for a
lot of coaches like that. And let me tell you something: the best
coaches are coaches like that.”
After remarking that he’s received angry emails since defending Rice
yesterday evening, Bolling remarked, “We are so afraid to discipline our
kids. We are so afraid to tell our kids we disagree with what they are
doing. Everyone gets a participation trophy. There’s no winners, there
are no losers in American life anymore. We are wussifying American men
and it has to stop.”
Echoing the sentiments of his colleagueSean Hannity,
Bolling asked what it would be like if we told a military drill
sergeant not to get in the face of his soldiers. “We’d be losing wars
all over the place” if that were the case, he suggested.
When Kelly expressed her negative feelings towards Rice’s pushing and
shoving of athletes who “can’t fight back,” the two went back and forth
over whether it’s “degrading” and “humiliating” to be treated that way
by a coach. When pressed to “draw a line” for when it becomes physically
“abusive,” Bolling said throwing punches would be egregious, but
grabbing and shoving by a coach is acceptable.
A former minor league baseball player, Bolling recalled the time he
was intentionally hit by a pitch for disciplinary measures. “If they set
the bar at ‘You can’t grab the guy’s shirt or throw a ball at his
feet,’ you’d probably have to eliminate two-thirds of coaches in
America,” he said.
“No racial or anti-gay slurs, and don’t hit anyone,” Bolling concluded. “I’m not for that.”
Yesterday the
Associated Press changed the way its writers handle illegal immigration
by striking the term "illegal immigrant" from the AP Style book. The
move led to some late night fodder from Jay Leno, who joked the AP will
be using "undocumented Democrat" from now on.
"Tingles" just foolishly let the whole MSNBC business plan out the bag with this one:
MSNBC Chris Matthews has a sociological lesson for conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh. After playing a clip of Limbaugh identifying racial antipathy in comments made by a pastor who spoke in front of President Barack Obama,
Matthews took Limbaugh to school on the definition of racism. He said
that racism, by definition, is the belief that white people alone should
“rule” all other races. This is a “definition” unknown to students of
global racial conflict.
Rev. Luis León presided over Easter Sunday services
attended by President Obama recently, and has taken fire from the right
for suggesting that racial hatred lurks in the hearts of conservatives.
During his radio show, Limbaugh agreed with a caller who suggested
that León was merely following the president’s lead in accusing the
right of latent racism.
“Actually, Rushbo, racism is the belief that one race – whites —
should rule all others,” Matthews confidently declared. “Get your
definitions straight.”
While the history of racial discrimination by whites against
minorities in the United States and around the world is voluminous and
ongoing, racism and racially motivated violence is by no means a
phenomenon limited to white people.
And these are just the presently raging across the globe, to say
nothing of the tragic history of racial violence around the world. And
this is purely ethnic, to say nothing of religious intolerance fueling
global discord and complicating international relations.
Matthew’s claim that white people are the sole practitioners of
racism is plainly, almost proudly, ignorant. Furthermore, such a
statement suggests a lack of intellectual rigor or even curiosity about
the nature of global conflict. At the very least, statements like these
do not serve the audience of a news program.
This is what white liberals want blacks and conservatives to accept as "the new normal"--your child performing homosexual acts on other humans and dressing in a manner normally associated with the opposite sex. Of course, Magic Johnson, notorious adulterer, former NBA star and successful businessman, comes out as "proud" that his son is behaving in this unGodly manner. Magic Johnson showed us all a long time ago that he had no moral foundation, what when he "came out" and publicly admitted to having the HIV virus after whoring himself around behind his wife Cookie's back for years during his professional playing days. Then too, Johnson would stand to lose his entire financial empire, if he were to stand up against the Godless, powerful, white, liberal lobby and actually come down against his "gay" son's immoral behavior while still loving his son from a distance. In an America that continues to lose its moral fabric as the Godless, white, social liberal agenda slowly takes over the country, that's not a risk worth taking:
Magic Johnson's 20-year-old son hit the Sunset Strip, hand in hand with his boyfriend ... and his parents couldn't be happier for their kid.
Earvin Johnson III
-- aka EJ -- is one of Magic's 3 kids. The Lakers legend tells TMZ,
"Cookie and I love EJ and support him in every way." Magic goes on,
"We're very proud of him."
The feeling is mutual ... 'cause EJ
told us he's been "hoping and praying" for his dad's team, the Los
Angeles Dodgers, ever since Magic and his business partners took over
the franchise.
He's also a huge Lakers fan ... obviously.
EJ
-- who's a student at NYU -- has a close relationship with his parents.
Back in August, Magic tweeted, "Thx to my son EJ for hosting me at NYU.
Look forward to taking him to dinner tonight in the city."
On Tuesday’s Hannity show, when asked for his thoughts on
gay marriage, Dr. Ben Carson stated that marriage “is between a man and a
woman” and that “no group — be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they
people who believe in bestiality, it doesn’t matter what they are — they
don’t get to change the definition. It’s not something that is against
gays, it’s against anybody who wants to come along and change the
fundamental definitions of pillars of society. It has significant
ramifications.”
The predictable “Dr. Ben Carson equates homosexuality with
bestiality!” outrage ensued, so much so that today Dr. Carson was
forced, on MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports, to explain:
And, you know, I think, you know, in terms of what
was said on Sean Hannity’s show, that was taken completely out of
context and completely misunderstood in terms of what I was trying to
say. You know, as a Christian, you know, I have a duty to love all
people and that includes people who have other sexual orientations, and I
certainly do, and never had any intention of offending anyone. What I
was basically saying, and if anybody was offended, I apologize to you.
But what I was basically saying is that there is no group. I wasn’t
equating those things. I don’t think they’re equal. Just, you know, if
you ask me for apple and I give you an orange you would say, well that’s
not an orange. And then I say, that’s a banana, that’s not an apple
either. And there’s a peach, that’s not an apple, either. But it doesn’t
mean that I’m equating the banana and the orange and the peach. And in
the same way I’m not equating those things.
But Dr. Carson should not have to explain what is simply an
obvious argument illustration, much less apologize to those offended
(i.e., to those lacking listening and reading comprehension skills).
While I am a conservative who supports same-sex marriage,
I fully appreciate the “slippery slope” public-policy argument made by
opponents who worry that redefining marriage could lead to recognition
of any other number of unions – including unsavory ones. Though I do not
personally envision this being the case down the road, it is certainly a
valid point and one worth considering.
When making this argument (as Dr. Carson did), polygamy, or marriage
to minors, or, yes, even bestiality (and marriage to one’s pets?) are
often invoked as possible ‘future products of marriage’s
re-definition.’ In no way, however, does it mean the individual (in this case, Dr. Carson) is equating same-sex marriage or homosexuality with any of the examples posited.
Rick Santorum was also a victim, like Dr. Carson, of
this false outrage. For several years, the Left ran with a terrible
(and possibly deliberate) misinterpretation of Santorum. In early 2012,
when Santorum’s presidential run was soaring, particularly following the
Iowa caucus, cries of “Santorum describes homosexual relations as ‘man
on dog’!” or “Santorum says gay marriage could lead to bestiality!” were
everywhere online (see, e.g., here). But, as it turns out, Santorum had said no such thing. The crude, inaccurate allegation stemmed from a 2003 Associated Press interview in which Santorum said this about gay marriage:
Every society in the history of man has upheld the
institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why?
Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the
future of the society. And that’s what? Children. Monogamous
relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever
to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on
homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever
the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a
dramatic impact on the quality—
[At that point, Santorum was interrupted by the interviewer who joked
that he/she was not expecting to hear a U.S. Senator use the term "man
on dog."]
Much like Dr. Carson, in no way did Santorum equate homosexuality or
gay marriage with bestiality. Santorum, on the contrary, was cautioning
that he was not equating gay marriage with other
prohibited-marriage categories such as “man on child” (individuals
marrying minors) and “man on dog” (individuals marrying animals).
Basic reading comprehension and common sense did not, however, prevent the unfair smears that haunted Santorum for years.
Dr. Carson’s “slippery slope” argument will naturally be made again
by traditional marriage supporters. Misquoting and misrepresenting
anyone on this issue – be it Dr. Carson, Rick Santorum, anyone – is
fueled by either the willfully obtuse or the agents of dishonest
hackery.
So to Dr. Carson, I say: no need to issue an apology. In fact, you’re owed one.
Student of Life, lover of God, Black, conservative Democrat, believer in self-responsibility, traditional values and morals, resident of New York City. Follow me on Twitter at @MrGreyGhost1.
Posts
