Fox News: Creating a Police State

3 Jan

Well, here we are on the third day of the year and already my New Year’s Wish, seems to plummeting to a quick and brutal demise–not that I’m giving up.  In fact, Fox et al., only make me more determined to stick to my convictions and principles to prevent the US from becoming a fascist state.  Rather than having any journalistic merit or integrity, Fox is now the Joe McCarthy of media.  Fox “Instead of informing citizens, Fox News (sic) informs on citizens. Jason Ditz reports that Fox News (sic) “no longer content to simply shill for a growing police state,” turned in a grandmother to the Department of Homeland Security for making anti-American comments.”  The article includes a lovely quote from President Kennedy:

I’m not asking your newspapers to support an administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people, for I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.”

Click here to read the entire article.

12 Responses to “Fox News: Creating a Police State”

  1. Nathan Gray January 3, 2011 at 8:20 pm #

    I’m replying here to your comment made on another page.I might have to give this some thought. All of the answers that I’ve typed and erased are getting me nowhere. You are right in assuming that I am not a bully. In fact, I am a loving husband, involved father, and steadfast friend. I respect any viewpoint as long as it is supported by some degree of reason. Michael, what is wrong with saying to that boy, “Son, that’s not what boys do”? You see, I have a three year old son, and when he sees his mother painting her nails and asks if he can do the same, she simply tells him no. And then explains that girls paint their nails – not boys. This example is trivial, I know. And don’t think me simplistic due to it.But I think, surely you see what I am trying to say. I was not intending to look like the bullying oaf of WordPress when I posted the the subject of this explanation. I was simply poking fun at something that I felt needed a little poking fun of. And now you see why I wondered if I should think on this longer before I replied.

    • Michael Hulshof-Schmidt January 3, 2011 at 8:27 pm #

      I really don’t think you are a bully! I really do think you try to be a good dad and a good person. My worry is that, as a gay man, you may be sending messages to your son (and to the public at large) that you are homophobic–that you really do fear and hate gays. I’m sure you already know that the most anti-gay folk are the ones that are huge closet cases. As parents, we must support and love our children. “They come through us, but they are not from us.”
      Would you love your son any less because he painted his nails or wanted to wear girls’ clothes? Would you deny him your love if he were gay? I suspect not. I suspect that you love your son unconditionally! I suspect you would protect and support your son regardless. You have the potential to become a hero–please don’t vilify people that are different.

  2. penguinlad January 3, 2011 at 8:32 pm #

    Interesting comment, Nathan. But your example begs the big question: WHY is painting nails something boys don’t do? Is there any reason other than pointless tradition and weird prejudice? There is enormous power in supporting your child as (s)he wants to be a fully realized person. Why blunt that power with trivial rules and restrictions? Teach your son not to hate, injure, and kill. Why worry about wardrobe and fingernails?

    • Michael Hulshof-Schmidt January 3, 2011 at 8:33 pm #

      Great point, Penguin, or whatever your name is. Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

  3. Nathan Gray January 3, 2011 at 8:56 pm #

    You do see the distinction between vilifying and considering something to be morally unsound? The tendency to take battle positions comes when a liberal culture expects, and even demands at times, that we accept their form of morality. With the homosexual movement that I’ve been watching for years, it seems that as it progresses their is left very little patience for anyone who considers a homosexual lifestyle to be immoral. That is where the hackles come up. That is where my frustration grows. Not that this person her or that one there is gay, but that parents are not discouraging it. Now, as for homosexuality itself, – and hear me on this – I see it as immoral, but nonetheless natural to some. Just like it is immoral for me to want to want to stare endlessly at a beautiful girl, wearing jeans and walking away, it is natural still. I view sex as something sacred and designed, for pleasure and for a purpose. I could go on, but I’ll wrap up by saying the these. first, when I see people making a moral issue into a political or cultural one that should expire soon, as I’ve seen from liberals on the sight that we’ve arrived here from, I grow impatient and angry. Second, if this has not all make you tire of me, we should banter on each others blogs. And now, without proofing this, I’ll just click…

    • Michael Hulshof-Schmidt January 3, 2011 at 9:08 pm #

      I feel very sad for you and for your children. You are so caught up in judging other people. You neglected to answer what you would do if your child is gay? I will still opt to believe that you will love your child unconditionally.

  4. Nathan Gray January 3, 2011 at 9:03 pm #

    Now that I’ve read that, I know I should have proofed it. Sorry for that. Penguin, The issue isn’t just the wardrobe. It is the gender distinction. If year 2021 comes around and boys are wearing dresses, fine then! Let the boys wear dresses. But when a boy specifically tries on the behavior or the attire of a girl, that is where I see the problem emerging.

    • penguinlad January 3, 2011 at 9:23 pm #

      EXACTLY. We only get to 2021 by making changes in 2011. I’m willing to bet that your wife (who won’t let your son wear nail polish) wears jeans. That wouldn’t be socially acceptable now if someone in 1961 hadn’t pushed and said “why does gender matter for this?” That’s my point. With all the things that we need to worry about, why obsess over these trivia?

  5. Nathan Gray January 3, 2011 at 9:12 pm #

    I only didn’t get to that answer because I thought it was assumed, and I didn’t want to go on. But, yes I would love them and spend time with them just as much.

  6. Nathan Gray January 3, 2011 at 10:53 pm #

    Both of you have spoken/written well tonight. I’ll not concede to, albeit will respectfully acknowledge, your ideals as I’m sure you’ll not to mine. So I’ll let it be. If I have sounded judgmental,-and I’m sure that I have- it was not my intention. God knows if am judged too harshly on the laws of morality, I’ll come up short, if at all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: