Liberal Dan Radio 5/21/2015: Bobby Jindal is an embarrassment.

On the May 21, 2015 episode of Liberal Dan Radio:

Right as it looked like Louisiana wasn’t going to embarass itself, again, with discriminatory laws Bobby Jindal comes to save the day to keep Louisiana pushing downwards to the bottom of every list. Hypocrite Jindal issued an executive order directing his administration to basically enforce the legislation that wasn’t passed.

Say what? I will go into why that is majorly hipocritical. I will also go into why his executive order is not only discriminatory, but is poorly constructed as well.

If time permits I will also go into other issues and take your calls as well.

So for more Talk From The Left, That’s Right, tune in at 8pm Central on Blog Talk Radio.

Remember, you can also support the show by going to the Liberal Dan Go Fund Me page.

Liberal Dan Radio 4/9/2015: More on Food Babe Garbage and Bigotry issues

On the April 9, 2015 episode of Liberal Dan Radio:

The “Food Babe” is getting a lot of negative publicity this week with a well written article on Gawker that is clearly showing the idocy of her and her followers. A counter group called “Banned By Food Babe” is cited the article. And since both the Liberal Dan Radio twitter accound and my personal twitter account has been banned by one of the people contributing to the stupification of America, I fit right in. Sure we have some differences but if you have been blocked/banned by the “Food Babe” by all means check this group out .

More information has come out about the Indiana law that would allow for anti-gay discrimination. I will further discuss this issue.

I will also be discussing the murder of Walter Scott.

Those issues, tweet of the week, headlines, and more on Liberal Dan Radio: Talk From The Left That’s Right, Thursdays at 8pm Central on Blog Talk Radio.

Remember to please support the show by contributing to the Liberal Dan Radio GoFundMe page.

Why Apple CEO Tim Cook Is Not A Hypocrite

You have seen the articles and the memes going around the internet today. Apple CEO Tim Cook stated that “pro discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous“. This caused a Conservative backlash and as I stated in a previous show of mine, when debating politics on the internet it is more important to be “popular” than it is to be “right”.

One such meme posted by “Chicks on the Right” states that Apple CEO Tim Cook won’t do business in Indiana because he can’t “tolerate discrimination” against Gays but will do business in countries where homosexual acts are punishable by death.

First problem with the meme. While the article does contain the words “never tolerate discrimination” it does not assert, or even imply, that Apple as a company or Tim Cook personally will stop doing business in Indiana. In fact, it says the opposite. It states that Apple is open for business to anyone. Apple is not closing up shop in Indiana. It is not going to refuse to sell you an iPhone or iPad or other iDevice to you if your address is contained within the borders of Indiana. So on its face the meme is a lie. He is not a hypocrite for doing business in those other countries because he hasn’t even stopped doing business in Indiana.

The website “the week” author Shikha Dalmia cites Cook’s editorial claims that Cook is calling for a “business boycott of Indiana”. Do a search on the editorial for yourself. There is no mention of the word “boycott” anywhere. And from her article in Reason.com she cites herself in her article from The Week to attack Cook for the boycott that doesn’t exist, claiming that the boycott is irresponsible. Good job there Dalmia. Cite yourself as proof that Cook is doing what he isn’t. So much for journalistic integrity.

But even if this was not about what Cook, or Apple, does as it pertains to business, it still shows another problem in political debate today. I have a Conservative friend on facebook in particular who will often ask me why I have not spoken out about a particular event (that he deems similar to other things that I have complained about). He doesn’t take the time to determine if I have heard about the event in question or to even allow me to consider if that event is actually related to those other things that I am complaining about .He will just assert a level of hypocrisy on my part for not standing up and complaining about that particular event since I claim to stand up for all events of that type.

Here is the problem with this logic. It basically means that in order for me to be an advocate against racism (the most frequent kind of topic he will bring up) that I have to know of every single possible racist event that has happened recently and my failure to address each and every one of them supposedly weakens my overall argument. His position is, of course, ridiculous. I cannot possibly be expected to know about every single wrong that has taken place to every single person in this country. I also cannot be expected to know about every single event that has taken place that he will wrongly connect with the things I advocate for. Furthermore, even if I did know about each and every one of them I cannot be expected to make a comment about each an every one of them. So the idea that my failure to comment on each and every item proves that I am some sort of hypocrite is obviously flawed as well. So even if we wanted to bring this meme, or the arguments of others making similar arguments, down to the “well why isn’t Tim Cook talking about every single bad thing that happens to persons who are Gay”, it is still a ridiculous argument that these Conservatives* are making and their attempts to be popular at the cost of being wrong should be called out.

All Cook has said was that we shouldn’t tolerate discrimination against gay people, even if it is in under the guise of religious freedom. He hasn’t called for boycotts. He hasn’t said that Apple will stop doing business in Indiana. So any editorial, meme, facebook post, tweet, blog entry, etc that starts with such b.s. should be closed and ignored with great haste.

*As a side note, liberal people have also done the same thing to me previously. This is not a left/right thing. This is purely a “better to be popular than right” thing.

Liberal Dan Radio 03/26/2015: The proposed Florida bathroom law

On the March 26, 2015 episode of Liberal Dan Radio:

Ted Cruz has announced his candidacy. I will explain why he shouldn’t be President because of one simple fact. I will also explain why that one simple fact has nothing to do with his place of birth.

Indiana and California are dealing with some very disturbing anti-gay legislation. I will go into each of those topics and give my opinion on them.

I will also be talking to my fellow Disney freak Kaden. Kaden lives in Florida and is very concerned about a new bathroom law that is being pushed in Florida and the impact it would have on transfolk like himself.

Those topics, headlines, tweet of the week, and more at 8pm Central on Liberal Dan Radio, Talk From The Left, That’s RIght.

If you want to support the show, please consider backing the Liberal Dan GoFundMe page.

Why I disagree with the Jezebel article on The Newsroom

The HBO program The Newsroom deals with many issues, one of them being the way that “old media” is reacting to “new media”. In her article pertaining to the most recent episode of The Newsroom, Julianne Escobedo Shepherd ends it with a description of a character death.

At the end of Sunday’s episode, Charlie Skinner, The Newsroom‘s moral dad played by Sam Waterston, has a heart attack and croaks, hitting his head on a desk near a computer on the way down—a symbolic sledgehammer that was meant to parallel the way the “internet” is “killing” “real journalism,” or something.

Skinner is a character who is a member of the old media. He fights tooth and nail with younger reporters and especially with the new owner over the direction the media is going. Some of the other old media types have also been seen to fight the new media at varying levels and with varying levels of frustration with the use of the internet and sites like twitter. Often some very good points are brought up in their hesitance to fully embrace the tools that the internet provides. Often times these characters are hesitant to embrace any of those tools. Shepherd seems to take this as the show itself sending the message “old media good, new media bad”. But if Sorkin is Dr. Frankenstein and the show his monster, I believe that a lot is overlooked with that simplistic view of television.

There are people in this world who are old media. Those people do drag their feet when it comes to embracing the new tools that the internet gives us. In order for The Newsroom to be a credible show, if it has old media types working for ACN (the news company featured in the show) then it has to portray them as old media types. When I watch the show (as I discussed on Liberal Dan Radio tonight) I don’t view the show as lauding old media as being king and scoffing at new media. I see a message that says “these old media guys really need to get with the program or they will fall behind”. Real life has flawed people and as such any show is going to have to have flawed characters in order to be realistic.

Which brings me to the initial subject of the article written in Jezebel, an article not on old vs new media but on rape, rape culture, and how The Newsroom handled a case of rape in this of all weeks where Rolling Stone fumbled the ball and showed horrible journalistic practices in its covering of rapes on UVA. A criticism that Shephard has is that the show was “poorly timed” as if Sorkin and HBO chose to release this episode in the middle of the Rolling Stone controversy. I think it may be a matter of dumb luck, be that luck good or bad.

This particular episode had a sub plot of the producer, Don, and his assignment by his new boss to go investigate a campus website that was created to expose rapists on campus. He was to find the creator of the website and one of her rapists and put them on camera together in studio. Don obviously is uncomfortable with this idea well before “the scene” that has caused much ire on the internet. But eventually Don is able to do some “old school” “detective work” and find the creator of the website. (Another criticism by Shephard is that Mary calling Don’s detective work “old school” was Sorkin trying to make Mary look bad. I took it as Mary being sarcastic to Don. But to each their own I suppose.)

Shephard is critical of every single bit of this scene. Another issue she brings up is with how Don refers to the rape that is alleged by the female character as a “kind of rape”. This of course is not what a rape victim would want to hear. And of course a reporter asking a victim of rape about her rape should not belittle the rape. However, Don is nervous and flawed and does not behave in a manner in which the perfect reporter would behave in that circumstance.

Another part of the show discussion has Mary (the victim) stating to Don “The law is plainly failing rape victims. That must be obvious to you”. His response is:

“It is, but in fairness, the law wasn’t built to serve victims … I’ve heard two competing stories, one from a very credible woman who has no reason to lie, the other from a guy I judge to be a little sketchy who has every reason to lie, and I’m obligated to believe the sketchy guy… I believe I’m morally obligated. I’m the guy who goes around saying OJ’s not guilty because a jury said so.”

Is that the best way to respond? It is correct to say that the law wasn’t built to serve victims. Ben Franklin once stated that it would be better for 100 guilty people to go free than have one innocent person locked up. We have an adversarial system of justice that should make it difficult to put people away in prison. Now, do you explain this to a rape victim who is visibly upset? That doesn’t seem to be the ideal thing to say under the circumstances. Perhaps he could have worded the later part better? Maybe instead of saying “and I’m obligated to believe the sketchy guy” he could have said “while I do not believe you are lying I also feel morally obligated to treat people as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law”. This might be a better way to put it, and it might not be. But, again, Don is nervous and flawed and does not behave in a manner in which the perfect reporter would behave in that circumstance.

And I think you see my point here. People are not perfect. If placed in that situation I guarantee you that I would be fumbling around and that I would not say the right things. I would stumble. I would make mistakes. I would misword things in ways that I would realize later were horribly stupid. But that is how life works. People like Don exist today. And a show cannot be taken seriously if it ignores that such people existed today when presenting such a situation. Had Don not been the fumbling idiot who is condescending to this victim, it would seem less real. Don has been a fumbling idiot when it comes to other interactions with women as well. If he all of a sudden starts acting perfect around women, that would be going out of character. And the biggest mistake that The Newsroom could make would be to have all of its characters be perfect people in a perfect way.

Sometimes the best example to give in a tv show is to show what not to do in a given situation. I cringed when he said “kind of rape”. I cringed when he said he was “obliged to believe the sketchy guy”. And that is the point. We are supposed to cringe at such things. We are supposed to see them go down and say “wow, that didn’t go well”. We can then use our hindsight in this fictitious universe where nobody was actually hurt and show the flaws that exist in society. We can look at the flawed characters and say “look guys, that is what you look like when you act this way towards victims of rape… STOP IT!”. That The Newsroom has such flawed characters in it does not make the show disdainful of women. It makes the show more realistic. It makes the show more credible. It also opens the door for good conversations on how we all should be treating persons who come forward as victims of rape.

 

Liberal Dan Radio 09/17/2014: More Stephen VanderGast than you can handle

Ok, maybe not. But this week on Liberal Dan Radio I discuss several issues including the NFL situation, what should a poor person be able to own and not be judged for it, and more.

And as always headlines, tweet of the week, and more this week on Liberal Dan Radio: Talk From The Left, That’s Right.

Victimizing victims with child support

An Arizona man, Nick Olivas, was sexually violated by a 20 year old woman when he was only 15 years old, by the nature of the fact that no child under 16 can legally consent to sex of any kind under Arizona law. No charges were pressed at the time. Olivas said he was uncomfortable with the situation at the time. However, he was unaware that he could go to the police and that the sexual act was a crime.

The rape produced a child. Now that the statute of limitations has run out and she can no longer be charged with the crime of rape (despite the fact that we all know that it was a rape that occurred) she sought child support from her victim. She was successful. Not only was she awarded child support in the future, he was assessed charges  for past child support that he “should have” paid plus a 10% penalty for those past due child support payments that he knew nothing about. Apparently it is the responsibility of rape victims to know when their rapists give birth and to support the children that they did not legally consent to creating.

I have no problem with the idea that the simple act of a male consenting to sexual relations with a woman causes him to be financially responsible for any child that results. But this is not what we are talking about here. This is rape. This person could not consent to the sex that was had and it is a travesty of justice to seek monetary payments against him. Defense of the law will typically come in the form of “it is not the fault of the child” that the child was born. Not only does this miss the point, since we can find other ways to support kids born from these situation, these arguments sound horribly similar to the arguments made against abortion rights in the case of rape.

Men’s rights advocates, who are usually wrong on many issues, will come out against these support laws as being wrong. They are right to oppose them but they do so for the wrong reasons. They will likely blame feminism for their existence. In fact one twitter user, who may or may not be an MRA (but sounds like one) states that this was the result of feminism.

I disagree. In reality laws like this are caused by the patriarchy and if feminism is successful in dismantling the patriarchy these laws will go away. Here are my reasons why the patriarchy is to blame for such laws.

The Patriarchy supports the idea that women are caretakers and men are the bread winners. Many of the flaws in our system that MRA will blame feminism for are because of archaic social views that a child should be raised by a woman and should be financially supported by men. Eliminating the gender pay gap, breaking up archaic gender roles, and embracing that both parents have equal roles in raising a child will go a long way in fixing the perception that women should be the ones who get custody and support payments. Once this happens, the laws can be changed to reflect our new social norms.

The Patriarchy supports the idea that men are pursuers and women are to be pursued. You have heard the arguments before. That teen boys who get to “score” with “older babes” are “lucky”. Regardless of what age of consent laws say, male victims who are incapable of consenting to sex under the law are scoffed at when people suggest that they have been victimized. These male victims must have wanted it, according to the tropes, and that must make it ok (or at least “better” than when an older male sleeps with a female who is legally incapable of consenting to sex). By keeping the idea that men pursue and women are pursued we not only retain the idea that women are possessions, but we also deny men the ability to say that they are victims. It contributes to why Olivas never initially contacted the police.

Eliminate the patriarchy and you help solve the problems that exist in this case. Eliminate feminism, and these problems continue as nobody is left to fight the actual root causes of those problems. 

Liberal Dan Radio 7/30/2014: The Best Oyster Louisiana Ever Produced

On the July 30, 2014 episode of Liberal Dan Radio:

Hobby Lobby is in the news again. This time the pro-family organization is being called out for firing an employee that needed to take time off to give birth.

Gay marriage bans are dropping like flies. This time it is in the 4th circuit where 5 states in the central east coast are covered by the ruling. One has to wonder how long it will take for the courts to finally say that the gay marriage issue is settled and you cannot dicriminate. Hopefully that will be sooner than later.

Finally, I will have on as a guest Mark Moseley. Mark is a Louisiana blog publishier, journalist, and a guru of politics. I will have him on to discuss a variety of issues including if the Democrats can take advantage of the current fractured state of the GOP.

Those issues, tweet of the week, words of redneck wisdom, headlines and more at 8pm Central on Liberal Dan Radio: Talk From The Left, That’s Right.

Should printing companies be held responsible for political mailers?

Richard Perque is running for traffic court judge in New Orleans. A lot of my friends are supporting him. I voted for him. Oh,and there is something else unrelated to his qualifications for Judge: he is openly gay. Yes, he shares the fact on his campaign website. But in reality it has nothing to do with his qualifications.

Other people disagree. For some reason they believe that because he is openly gay he would have some problem determining if someone was speeding or not. A hate piece has just been mailed out suggesting that people should think “long and hard” about this candidate.

The flyer was mailed out by the “Committee for Common Decency”. While such hatred is all to common in Louisiana, I find nothing decent about it. According to the above article, there is no such committee in the State of Louisiana. There are laws in Louisiana that require certain reporting for paid political activities (especially this close to an election). I doubt this mailer was reported to the state. And that leads me to the question posed in the title of this post.

If a printing company is creating a political flyer, shouldn’t it be required to affirm that the information on the flyer is factual (at least the required information about who paid for it)? If they are not, then you wind up with anonymous hate flyers like this mailed out. If the law doesn’t require printing companies to verify this information, it should.

 

 

 

Liberal Dan Radio August 15th, 2013: Income inequality, the maximum wage, and Rodeo Clowns

On the August 15th 2013 episode of Liberal Dan Radio:

It was bound to happen since I do not always agree with my fellow liberals. On this show I am going to touch on several subjects where I will be critical of some liberals.

The MSNBC show All In With Chris they are requesting stories about income inequality and are labelling the campaign “#maximumwage“. It sounds like they are trying to solve the problems of the income inequality that happen in our country with setting a limit on how much someone can earn. I will go over some examples of what maximum wage supporters propose and why they absolutely will not work to solve income inequality.

On last week’s show I really was unable to get into education as much as I should have. So I will be going over some of the problems that Orleans Parish is having with delivering services to children with developmental disabilities.

Finally, everyone is talking about the Obama clown. I will explain from the liberal point of view why everyone is completely overreacting about this.

Those topics, Words of Redneck Wisdom, Tweet of the Week, Headlines and more, tonight on Liberal Dan Radio: Talk From The Left, That’s Right.

And remember, please help the show expand and contribute to the Kickstarter.