“I don't really care about Farrow's libel... Wasn't the topic of my post... And, as to the quote from the Post article, they also can't offer a quote from the tip sheet that uses Allen's name. It may be obvious that "not asking family matters" relates to Allen and Farrow, but poor journalism on the part of HP for making such an explicit/exact headline and allegation based on unsubstantiated material.”
“Anyone else notice how the author writes "Specifically, journalists were cautioned to ask no questions about Farrow's family's ongoing Woody Allen psychodrama," but the quote pulled form the page 6 article doesn't refer specifically to Allen or the allegations in any way? Once again, HP brings us sensationalism, libel, and a mockery of real journalism! Woot woot!”
headly67 on Feb 26, 2014 at 17:07:04
“I guess Farrow's libel is AOK when it comes to Woody.
Real journalistic.......make claims without proof.
Oh and BTW.......from the Post article.....
"Reporters have been issued a tip sheet that includes stern “conditions” not to ask anything about Allen"”
“I don't know where your information is coming from, but I know VERY FEW people in this State supported him in the elections. He won because the rest of the vote was split between an Independent and a Democrat. If the Democratic Party had recognized the way they threatened the election early enough, they would have conceded the liberal vote to Eliot Cutler, and we wouldn't have ended up here, with him.”
pepper1311 on Feb 12, 2014 at 10:22:08
“Must been majority of voters! One does not need 50% to be elected, ask Billo Clinton, Ross Perot was the spoiler in that one.”
“It is interesting-and I have not yet formed a cut opinion on whether or not it should be taught in schools so let's avoid a witch hunt-but it is interesting that a huge element of American legal history includes a Court decision ALLOWING evolution to be taught in schools when it was not popular to do so. Indeed, keeping creationism out of schools only appears "right" if we agree with the teachings of evolution-do we have a right to keep some beliefs out of schools and others in? We draw the line at teaching certain obscure religious beliefs, but we can hardly say that creationism is an obscure belief.”
Fran Jaime on Feb 8, 2014 at 12:53:58
“SCOTUS has been very clear that religion cannot be taught in schools. Until creationism manages to produce peer-reviewed studies that validate it, it's a religious belief.”
“The position of "People should be allowed to make their own choices" is generally detrimental to the pro-abortion argument. Trying to align it to an issue like a gay marriage is an absurd claim, because the point of contention on this issue is so much more severe than the surface issues of women's right to choose and individual rights. The religious argument against abortion is that the fetus should be recognized as an individual human. If we entertained this notion, then no one would argue for legalized abortion. Let's stop focusing on the superficial arguments that garnish the issue, and start focusing on the true divide: whether or not we can, legally or culturally or scientifically or spiritually, determine when a human life "begins."”
“I'll remind you that your first post includes the words, "continues to promote human rights abuses," yet the only exemplary cases you can show me are past. Yet, the church has an extraordinarily rocky history. So does any religious institution. Or, for that matter, any institution of government, any institution of academia, and any institute of science. I will allow that my statement is incorrect: the church has not "always" been the same. But the church is moving in a positive way on these issues, and what TIME has done is legitimize this movement. I won't tell you to ignore the problems and strife within the institution, for the largest institution on Earth, larger than any Nation, will undoubtedly always have problems. But I will ask that you not ignore the good and positive and charitable work that the Church has lead the way in for the last 15 centuries.”
islanddreamer on Dec 15, 2013 at 12:43:25
“I had a long correspondence some years ago with the founder, Father Bruce Ritter of Covenant House, a Catholic Charity that helps homeless youth. I later continued that conversation with Sister Mary McGeady who succeeded Father Ritter. I pointed out that survey after survey in cities across the country showed that a disproportionate number of homeless youth (40%) were LGBT youth, kicked out of their homes by parents who didn't want a gay child. I explained to them that the Church's teachings were contributing to the very problem they were trying to alleviate. How much better it would be if the Church taught acceptance of homosexuality and these children were loved by their families and communities. Both Father Ritter and Sister McGeady agreed with me completely. The Catholics who are actually doing the heavy lifting of the Church know the truth. I have utmost respect for them. It is the Church hierarchy and it's dogmatic teachings that I hold in contempt.”
“I would agree that the Church has a long way to go in its relationship to the LBGTQ community. Yet your characterization of its position as in violation of human rights, and relating its position to slavery, is a sad distortion, informed not by the actual teachings of the institution, but rather the radicals who have hijacked the institution's reputation and name. The Catholic church has always tried to emphasize that (in a rather illogical, but far from cruel way) that their defense of "traditional" marriage should in no way belittle the rights and respect for gay and lesbian couples. This is a roundabout way of trying to say that the argument is not about gay rights, but about the right of the State to create a definition of an originally religious institution (marriage). That said, I believe the church has made an improper claim to the exclusive defining rights of the institution of marriage. But to call it a violation of human rights is reactionary and crude, and belittles the vast amount of good and social justice the church promotes around the world. This, I think, is why Pope Francis has been so acclaimed: he is reminding us of the power of the church to promote good where good is needed, and not strife where strife is unnecessary. The church HAS always done that, it's only now that the political arm of the church is reminded to return to that root message. Peace.”
islanddreamer on Dec 11, 2013 at 21:10:00
“The Church has a long way to go in it's relation to women as well. I also remind you that it wasn't too long ago that the Church's message to Africans was that condoms cause AIDS thereby directly contributing to this health crisis and frustrating the efforts of healthcare workers. Back in 1986, the Vatican sent out a pastoral letter saying that while it didn't condone violence against homosexual, it was "understandable." Really? How so? This sort of message gives bullies ample ammunition to target gay teens who suffer enormously as a result. In Ireland the scandal of forced adoptions is just getting some light thrown on it. Google the story of Philomena Lee. I don't know what one would call this but an abuse of human rights.”
“Can't we please call HP AND Cohen out for this? Cohen wrote a line that could be misconstrued as racist, but (if you actually go to the article and read it) clearly ISN'T. He admits fault. But instead of posting an apology for an inflammatory/accusatory/libelous headline, HP publishes this. I fear HP because of its appearance as a conventional news source, but its reality as an incredibly biased source that rarely has more than opinion backing its claims.”
“How we should help is provide disaster relief now, and then repeatedly for the next two years. Unfortunately, we have a tendency to get bored with each new crisis, and our attempts to help do not reach farther than cleaning up the mess. Look at how our efforts in Haiti disappeared once we didn't have any photos of the wreckage to inspire us. These countries need more than just disaster relief help. They need our disaster recovery help.”
analyst0042 on Nov 10, 2013 at 10:07:47
“Send your money not mine. Its amazing how much people like to spend other people's money. We will be sending Chnia's money in any case.”
“I think the scenario you suggest would have been an equally crude comment, an equally poor comparison. But it wouldn't be racist. It doesn't have anything to do with race, and has everything to do with word choice. I'm not interested in an argument about abortion, or an argument about the two sides. I'm interested in discussing the flawed rhetoric that makes for even more polarization around groups with incredibly similar goals.”
“I'd like to repost what I posted earlier. The intention of the meme is to compare the "Anti-Abortion? Don't get one" slogan from the pro-choice constituency to the statement "anti-slavery? Don't buy one." The pro-choice argument is that those who don't believe in abortion should merely not participate in it, but allow others to. The statement of the meme is that we would never say the same thing about slavery. The meme is, in fact, a very anti-slavery statement, and I'm still trying to discover, just because they used an image of slave trade, how this can be so misoncstrued as a directly racist statement. It has nothing to do with comparing abortion to slavery. It has to do with criticizing the rhetoric that the pro-choice side has used, and making the statement that telling the anti-abortion side to just not participate is like telling someone just not to participate in slavery but allow it to happen. Unfortunately, we live in a reactionary, impulsive, and censored society, so merely the words "GOP" and "slavery" in the same context must automatically mean to us that they are somehow making a pro-slavery statement.”
“I totally, one hundred percent agree. But this meme, this picture associated with the caption, has nothing to do with a desire to go back to a system of slavery. In fact, it is specifically stating that the system of slavery is terrible, and everyone who does not condemn it is actively participating in it. THIS MEME DOES NOT MAKE A STATEMENT SUPPORTING SLAVERY.”
“The caption of the meme "Pro-Choice: Against slavery? Don't get one"
shows how ridiculous the popular pro-choice slogan "Against abortion?
Don't get one." The meme is not promoting slavery, it's showing that
those who did not actively condemn slavery were just as complicit in the
system of slavery. It shows that telling someone who is anti-abortion
to just not get an abortion is similar to telling someone who is against
slavery to just not get a slave. This is NOT a post promoting the slave trade. This is a post illustrating that not getting an abortion is about as significant a position as not buying a slave. READ THE CAPTION. Understand the subtext, and the statement.”
“The caption of the meme "Pro-Choice: Against slavery? Don't get one" shows how ridiculous the popular pro-choice slogan "Against abortion? Don't get one." The meme is not promoting slavery, it's showing that those who did not actively condemn slavery were just as complicit in the system of slavery. It shows that telling someone who is anti-abortion to just not get an abortion is similar to telling someone who is against slavery to just not get a slave. It is in no way condoning the slave trade, It is instead saying that abortion is as much an abomination as the slave trade is, and both can't be defended by simply telling those opposed to it to not participate in it.”
John Rogers87 on Oct 31, 2013 at 23:34:30
“You might have a point were it not for the fact that you overlooked one small thing, the woman who has to carry a baby until term. Do you think it would have been O.K. if a pro-choice group had used that same image, depicting women as slaves because they are being physically forced to be an incubator, mocking people who say if you don't want to carry a baby, don't have sex?”
quincy maxwell on Oct 31, 2013 at 14:20:12
“I view this a different way. Pro-choice...pro slavery. If you want a slave, get one, that is your choice. As the way it was in the South which started our civil war. I don't believe it has anything to do with abortion. It is saying much more than that. It is anti-black, thusly, being anti-Obama. That is the way these people operate. And why did they take it down so quickly? Why not defend it and explain it. Why not do what they usually do, show pictures of unborn fetus'...that is usually their normal way of doing thing. This photo was disgusting and shows how these people think even today.”
“Perhaps I can explain it to you. The meme is satirizing a popular Pro-Choice slogan "Against abortion? Don't get one." It's showing how ridiculous the statement is in other contexts. The meme shows how telling someone who is anti-abortion to just not get one is as ridiculous as telling someone who is against slavery to just not get one. For those of you who don't read the caption/don't get its double meaning, it is criticizing a pro-choice slogan as being AS ridiculous as a defense of slavery, and is in no way condoning slave trade.”
“Your statement just proved exactly what the creator of this meme was trying to say. The caption of the meme "Pro-Choice: Against slavery? Don't get one" shows how ridiculous the popular pro-choice slogan "Against abortion? Don't get one." The meme is not promoting slavery, it's showing that those who did not actively condemn slavery were just as complicit in the system of slavery. It shows that telling someone who is anti-abortion to just not get an abortion is similar to telling someone who is against slavery to just not get a slave.”
PubliusK on Nov 1, 2013 at 09:06:58
“Mea Culpa, Martin. I got caught up and lost the forest for the trees. I still don't like it. But I agree. It is not racist. As someone who believes that racism is alive and well and should be fought, I also feel like throwing that card by both sides is just as big a problem. We can bring up parts of our horrible past, and we can talk about race without being racist.”
“Read the caption. The statement of the meme is that saying "Against slavery, don't get one" is as ridiculous as the popular pro-choice slogan "anti-abortion, don't get one." It's the idea that not partaking in the system of abortion is similar to not partaking in the system of slavery. Selling Black is not A-ok with me, and it's not A-ok with whoever put together this meme.”
DoILookConfusedToYou on Oct 31, 2013 at 14:20:24
“Oh, I understood the caption. Their actions are as despicable as comparing something to the holocaust. If they didn't KNOW it was offensive why did they take it down?
Don't even TRY to justify their behavior. Only a racist would try to justify racist behavior.”
“The statement "Against slavery? Don't get one" made by the meme is satirizing the pro-choice statement "Anti-abortion? Don't get one." It is showing that no one would make such a statement regarding slavery, so why should one make such a statement about abortion. The meme doesn't make a remotely racist statement, it actually tries to say that the idea of not advocating against slavery is as ridiculous an idea to them as not advocating against abortion. It's essentially an anti-abortion, anti-slavery, anti-racist meme.”
“Would you explain the racism of the post, please?”
Jay Whalley on Oct 31, 2013 at 14:23:50
“That's in a nutshell is what's wrong, you need someone to explain why this post is racist. There are non so blind as those that can not see!”
Freedomaphile on Oct 31, 2013 at 13:04:43
“The fact that you need that explained tells me a lot about you level of awareness.”
quincy maxwell on Oct 31, 2013 at 13:03:27
“It is a scene of slave auction. How many white people were sold into slavery in that time period? How many white people were denied the right to learn to read and write? How many white people were treated as sub-humans? Are you so daft that you cannot see the racism in that posting? How many slaves would you own today if you could?”
ultrawiz on Oct 31, 2013 at 13:02:42
“Seriously? You actually need this explained to you?”
PubliusK on Oct 31, 2013 at 12:58:03
“Really, Martin? I am thinking that the idea is that slavery should not be a problem to those who do not own slaves. In other words, slavery is/was 'okay'. This attitude was one of those that was used for decades by Southerners. It insinuates that the slaves had no say in the matter and that people with morals have no say. Not racist? Help me understand it, then.”
ctwt74 on Oct 31, 2013 at 12:55:05
“If you don't see the racism it's probably because you are a racist”
“Could you show me the NYTimes article on this woman fainting, I can't find it...
Anyway, the two stories bear no resemblance to each other. The story about HW vomiting is about a former president falling ill and collapsing during an event. This could mean any number of things: his imminent death, some sort of poison attempt, something terribly wrong, etc.
I agree, there are an incredible number of conspiracy theorists doing their crazy thing to this article, but to base your judgment on a political party on its radicals is ludicrous.”
yiayiageorgie on Oct 22, 2013 at 11:18:45
“I have been married to a wonderful centrist Republican for 38 years, so I am well aware that all of the right is not loony; I should have said "so many in the right wing are". The NY Times doesn't have a twenty-four hour news cycle, however it is not immune to writing about this sort of thing. March 15, 2012, 12:46 pm
At Obama Rallies, Fainting Spells Resurge
I acknowledge this is an old story but I think you get my point. Now Google "pregnant woman fainting Obama" and see how many news organizations thought this was worth mentioning.
As far as Bush vomiting...no one was afraid it was something serious; there were Doctors on hand to reassure everyone before it hit the press. But I could go on and on about silly things making the front page, That one just popped into my head. Lets see....Gerald Ford tripping as he gets off of a plane, JFK not wearing a shirt on the beach. All big news. Blaming Huffington Post for giving you information you aren't interested in is what is ludicrous. Again, there is a difference between hard news and human interest stories. If you really want factual, nonbiased, and essential news anymore you will need to check several news sources; Huffington Post should not be one of them.”
“Thank God HP is there to tell me this vital information. In a time where we young people seem totally disengaged in the national debate, it's a good thing organizations like these are there to insure I get factual, nonbiased, and essential information about the state of my government.
Keep up the good work.”
yiayiageorgie on Oct 21, 2013 at 23:28:25
“It is just a story. Lets see..how important was it to write about George H.W. Bush vomiting on the Japanese Prime Minister? It is called human interested. Both stories were reported by every news agency. Judging by the comments from right wing conspiracy theorists (it was staged...I tell you it was staged!) it actually is a story of some importance. Perhaps you young people CAN learn something from this....how incredibly loony the right wing is.”
“Umm, I won't speak for anyone, but I don't think this commenter was impying she literally believed Obama brought the woman back to life. Most likely she did read the article, and her comment is probably meant to reflect how for some reason we think it newsworthy that Obama would reach back to help a woman who's going to pass out on stage behind him, when it seems like a gesture any human being would make in the same situation. Why is this a newsstory in the first place? But hey, I can't speak for nannymel...”
“Oh, I won't pass judgment on the parents based on a single video. Who knows if they're great or terrible parents! However, this video seems to capture a moment that many are complimenting, but could actually be destructive. I hope my comment didn't sound condemning of the whole family and their situation, just the fact that we shouldn't be celebrating a moment where parenting techniques have actually been misused. ”
“This may work as a parenting tactic to show the child how ridiculous a tantrum really looks. But to do it while the screaming child is in the other room, and to do it in front of your other children, with the whole family laughing at the other child's expense, doesn't seem very appropriate. It seems rather cruel. Is this teaching your children to make fun of each other? To not respect each other when others get upset? Every single thing we do in front of a young child is absorbed and catalogued, and if the behavior persists, it will exhibit itself in the child.”
Empire of Bottle Caps on Oct 20, 2013 at 10:36:15
mfhpr on Oct 20, 2013 at 10:06:40
“While you could be right, you could be wrong. Those parents might actually be two of the best in the business and all their kids might grow up to have fun, not throw tantrums when they don't get their way (be mature), etc. Every situation is different. The tantrum-thrower could end up becoming a doctor, lawyer, judge, or just a great, caring, loving person or parent that learned lots of great lessons from his/her parents and siblings. I'd venture to say this might be shared with loved ones and friends at that child's graduation party or wedding!”
lilyhammer on Oct 20, 2013 at 09:51:33
I agree. There's no reason for everyone in the family to make fun of the child throwing the tantrum -- and then post it on the web. The rest of the family can just go about their business until the tantrum is over. Ignoring the child's unreasonable behavior accomplishes all the parenting goals, e.g., showing that parents/family won't be held hostage, without being mean.”
gncnash on Oct 20, 2013 at 09:49:17
“Take a chill pill hon.”
sbotl1952 on Oct 20, 2013 at 09:46:11
“Always one in the crowd”
mass maritimer on Oct 20, 2013 at 09:45:39
“better than how my dad would have addressed it....hint......something to really cry about”
xdevildawg4u on Oct 20, 2013 at 09:40:04
“To the contrary, if Ted Cruz's dad had done more of this when Ted was a child perhaps America could have been spared his dangerous temper tantrums and hissy fits decades later!”
Trapped in Paradise on Oct 20, 2013 at 09:25:24
“I think it lets the kid know that no one is going to be held hostage by their inappropriate behaviour. I mean, if she was in there for an hour already carrying on like that,she's lucky no one dragged her from that room and put her outside.”
“Yet again, somebody does something stupid, somebody else finds some way that those people are related to some upstanding, albeit controversial, organization, and suddenly they represent the organization in their entirety. Hate to spoil the dishing out criticism party, but most Boy Scout Leaders are upstanding people, incredibly knowledgable of and conscientious about the natural world. Chances are these guys usually are, too, they're just caught in a moment of dumb fun with their friends. How many "likes" would this have gotten if these guys were 20 year old kids? Please hold back all these rude and negative criticisms, accusations, and insults unless they're based solely on the facts in the story. We don't know if they're Republicans, or if they're good or bad role models. We don't know that they represent a large part of the organization. We don't know zilch. So let's keep it civil.”
WorkingGroup on Oct 20, 2013 at 01:13:17
“Thank you, Pollyanna.”
suki21693 on Oct 19, 2013 at 23:53:53
“"How many likes would this have gotten if these guys were 20 year old kids?"
Two things about that question: 1.) Zero. They would have gotten zero likes. Nobody seems to think this is acceptable behavior. 2.) Since when do we want to judge adult men in their 30s, 40s or older by the same lower standard by which we judge 20-year-olds?
As an aside: I have not seen one comment critical of the Boy Scouts in relation to this. There have been comments saying that these guys should be booted out, and there have been comments saying the Scouts should allow gays, but there have been none that held the Scouts culpable for this. YOU are the dishing out baseless criticism party. A party of one.”
mickeba on Oct 19, 2013 at 23:23:12
“Upstanding bigoted homophobes!”
Peartree3 on Oct 19, 2013 at 23:12:05
“Yep. It's just a little harmless middle-age "Boys will be Boys" funnin' around. Just the kind of leaders and role-models we want for our Scout and Church groups, right? How unfair to hold them to even mediocre standards of behavior! How unfair that they thought this "moment of dumb fun" was so hilarious that they should post it for the world to see.
You may not "know zilch," but some of us base our knowledge on what is right there for all to see and hear.”