Monday, December 14, 2009
Phil Bronstein: Screw Them Homos.
In this week's column, Phil Bronstein looks at the Salvation Army, and concludes that, yeah, they are gay haters, but they are nice and cuddly gay haters, so he can give them his money with no qualms.
The Salvation Army, the country's biggest charity, is taking it full on the chin from a social media network mobilized against the organization's position on homosexuality and other social sins. Twitter, Facebook and gay Web sites are lit up with protest and calls for donor boycotts...
...Before we take the predictable San Francisco, to-the-barricades view on all this, let's consider the Catholic concept of "proportionalism." This means (roughly, my interpretation) that bad conduct can be acceptable if a much greater good is being accomplished.
Ok, says Phil, so we can enter some fuzzy realm of moral relativism where you can do evil, as long as you do some good in some other place. Which leads eventually to Phil saying:
After weighing the moral dilemma, I'll be dropping some dough in that bucket myself.
So: anti-gay organization also does good work, Phil will donate to them. Also: that's the contrarian attitude to "the predictable San Francisco, to-the-barricades view," and Phil reflexively enjoys anything that pisses off San Francisco progressives, he's immature that way.
We wonder where Phil will draw the line, though: what if the Salvation Army also organized dog fights on top of being anti-homo, would he still give to them? Would Phil donate to Hamas, which, according to wikipedia has a charity overhead which rivals that of the Salvation Army: An estimated 80% to 90% of Hamas revenues fund health, social welfare, religious, cultural, and educational services. "Proportionalism" applies too, right?
Phil is being dense, as usual, because the fact that the Salvation Army offsets their intolerance with some good is no reason to fund them: there are plenty of other charities which do good, without hating on the gays. Phil does not care about the gays, and what do you expect, he's a conservative. But YOU should donate to the charity which will help people without forcing their hateful values on anyone. There are plenty.
The Salvation Army, the country's biggest charity, is taking it full on the chin from a social media network mobilized against the organization's position on homosexuality and other social sins. Twitter, Facebook and gay Web sites are lit up with protest and calls for donor boycotts...
...Before we take the predictable San Francisco, to-the-barricades view on all this, let's consider the Catholic concept of "proportionalism." This means (roughly, my interpretation) that bad conduct can be acceptable if a much greater good is being accomplished.
Ok, says Phil, so we can enter some fuzzy realm of moral relativism where you can do evil, as long as you do some good in some other place. Which leads eventually to Phil saying:
After weighing the moral dilemma, I'll be dropping some dough in that bucket myself.
So: anti-gay organization also does good work, Phil will donate to them. Also: that's the contrarian attitude to "the predictable San Francisco, to-the-barricades view," and Phil reflexively enjoys anything that pisses off San Francisco progressives, he's immature that way.
We wonder where Phil will draw the line, though: what if the Salvation Army also organized dog fights on top of being anti-homo, would he still give to them? Would Phil donate to Hamas, which, according to wikipedia has a charity overhead which rivals that of the Salvation Army: An estimated 80% to 90% of Hamas revenues fund health, social welfare, religious, cultural, and educational services. "Proportionalism" applies too, right?
Phil is being dense, as usual, because the fact that the Salvation Army offsets their intolerance with some good is no reason to fund them: there are plenty of other charities which do good, without hating on the gays. Phil does not care about the gays, and what do you expect, he's a conservative. But YOU should donate to the charity which will help people without forcing their hateful values on anyone. There are plenty.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
The Chron's Alternate Reality
The Chron also list reasons to vote for the GOP and the Dems.
One reason to vote for the Dems:
Win back the governor's office: Brown's backers say he'll get things done after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger struggled to make good on his vow to cut spending.
Arnold eviscerated California as we know it through devastating budget cuts. But the Chron refuses to give him credit for that. Not only, it also phrases it in a way that recommends to vote for Brown because Jerry would cut the spending!
The piece does not have a byline, but it smells like Carla.
One reason to vote for the Dems:
Win back the governor's office: Brown's backers say he'll get things done after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger struggled to make good on his vow to cut spending.
Arnold eviscerated California as we know it through devastating budget cuts. But the Chron refuses to give him credit for that. Not only, it also phrases it in a way that recommends to vote for Brown because Jerry would cut the spending!
The piece does not have a byline, but it smells like Carla.
The Chron: The Voice of the GOP.
Carla Marinucci is, as always, talking up the chances of the GOP in the next election:
GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman, the former eBay CEO, has repeatedly lambasted "the politicians" whom she says have run California into the ground - pointedly referencing Attorney General Jerry Brown, a Democrat and former two-term governor who is running for a third term in next year's election.
"Californians have had it with career politicians - they're done," said Whitman.
Except Brown was governor a long time ago, and Carla could point out, maybe, that the current governor (a) belongs to the GOP, and (b) is definitely not a career politicians. Even I seem to recall he was in the movie business before. We can't recall his name, as he is not named directly in the article (only once, as a clarification of someone's point). But Carla goes on:
A similar theme is emerging in the U.S. Senate race, where Republicans Carly Fiorina, a former Hewlett-Packard CEO, and Assemblyman Chuck DeVore of Irvine are vying to oust U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, a Democrat.
Fiorina said recently in Washington that she has the best shot at defeating Boxer. "If someone has a spending problem," Fiorina said, "you stop giving them money."
Except, Carly, in recession, cutting spending is not the solution. Cutting the state spending only results in more jobs lost, which ripple down into an economy contracting more. Long term budgets matter, but short term deficits are not the problem right now, getting out of the recession is. But Carla Marinucci won't mention that, either.
But most hilarious is the intro of the article:
In blue-leaning California, the dangers for Democrats are becoming evident as the GOP works to fire up voters with issues like budget deficits, health care reform and the costs of curbing global warming.
Budget deficits: You mean those created by Bush's tax cuts, Bush's wars and Bush's recession? Health care reform: what's the GOP plan exactly, beyond stalling and obstructing in Congress? And curbing global warming: again, what's the GOP position beyond denying science?
That GOP can fire up voters on these issues is not funny actually, but a testimony of their ability to manipulate the media. Of course an objective, truth seeking journalist would laugh at their stance on those specific issues. But all we got here is the Chron.
GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman, the former eBay CEO, has repeatedly lambasted "the politicians" whom she says have run California into the ground - pointedly referencing Attorney General Jerry Brown, a Democrat and former two-term governor who is running for a third term in next year's election.
"Californians have had it with career politicians - they're done," said Whitman.
Except Brown was governor a long time ago, and Carla could point out, maybe, that the current governor (a) belongs to the GOP, and (b) is definitely not a career politicians. Even I seem to recall he was in the movie business before. We can't recall his name, as he is not named directly in the article (only once, as a clarification of someone's point). But Carla goes on:
A similar theme is emerging in the U.S. Senate race, where Republicans Carly Fiorina, a former Hewlett-Packard CEO, and Assemblyman Chuck DeVore of Irvine are vying to oust U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, a Democrat.
Fiorina said recently in Washington that she has the best shot at defeating Boxer. "If someone has a spending problem," Fiorina said, "you stop giving them money."
Except, Carly, in recession, cutting spending is not the solution. Cutting the state spending only results in more jobs lost, which ripple down into an economy contracting more. Long term budgets matter, but short term deficits are not the problem right now, getting out of the recession is. But Carla Marinucci won't mention that, either.
But most hilarious is the intro of the article:
In blue-leaning California, the dangers for Democrats are becoming evident as the GOP works to fire up voters with issues like budget deficits, health care reform and the costs of curbing global warming.
Budget deficits: You mean those created by Bush's tax cuts, Bush's wars and Bush's recession? Health care reform: what's the GOP plan exactly, beyond stalling and obstructing in Congress? And curbing global warming: again, what's the GOP position beyond denying science?
That GOP can fire up voters on these issues is not funny actually, but a testimony of their ability to manipulate the media. Of course an objective, truth seeking journalist would laugh at their stance on those specific issues. But all we got here is the Chron.
The Chron Props Up Radical Fringes.
On the cover today, Tea Party radicals gear up for 2010 elections.
Joe Garofoli is no Carla Marinucci, but we can't help but cringe when we read:
...several [tea party] organizers...compared the Tea Party to the anti-war movement in the wake of the 2004 elections.
Oh yeah, tea party are similar to anti-war movement? But where was the cover articles in the Chron then? Because in my recollection, the Chron was trying to belittle and delegitimize anti-war opponents (which were rather mainstream, by the way, not some fringe wackos), not giving its front page to the Tea Baggers.
Phil Bronstein fired tech writer Henry Norr for participating in anti-Iraq wars demonstrations. He also dumped Paul Krugman's column for being too anti-Bush and shrill.
But now, carrying pictures of the President with swastikas get you on the cover of the Chron. Fair and balanced Chron.
Joe Garofoli is no Carla Marinucci, but we can't help but cringe when we read:
...several [tea party] organizers...compared the Tea Party to the anti-war movement in the wake of the 2004 elections.
Oh yeah, tea party are similar to anti-war movement? But where was the cover articles in the Chron then? Because in my recollection, the Chron was trying to belittle and delegitimize anti-war opponents (which were rather mainstream, by the way, not some fringe wackos), not giving its front page to the Tea Baggers.
Phil Bronstein fired tech writer Henry Norr for participating in anti-Iraq wars demonstrations. He also dumped Paul Krugman's column for being too anti-Bush and shrill.
But now, carrying pictures of the President with swastikas get you on the cover of the Chron. Fair and balanced Chron.
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Phil Thinks He Is Above the Fray.
We read this from Phil Bronstein:
I've stayed out of the heavily populated Tiger Woods thing but the conclusions for him here are inescapable: When you're even tangentially in the public eye, you can easily get blamed for things you didn't do. Superstars just have to assume they'll invariably get blamed for things they actually do.
The post weaves Tiger's affairs with Phil's celebrity, as if Phil could not tell the difference between himself and a true superstar. Phil has such a big ego that he should write with the Getty brothers.
That big ego lacks a bit of self-awareness, since Phil of course did not "stay out of the Tiger Woods thing," but wrote his previous blog post on that very topic!
I've stayed out of the heavily populated Tiger Woods thing but the conclusions for him here are inescapable: When you're even tangentially in the public eye, you can easily get blamed for things you didn't do. Superstars just have to assume they'll invariably get blamed for things they actually do.
The post weaves Tiger's affairs with Phil's celebrity, as if Phil could not tell the difference between himself and a true superstar. Phil has such a big ego that he should write with the Getty brothers.
That big ego lacks a bit of self-awareness, since Phil of course did not "stay out of the Tiger Woods thing," but wrote his previous blog post on that very topic!
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
If it does not make sense, it's in the Chron.
Phil Bronstein contends that:
Who's in charge in D.C.? Not who you think
Nancy Pelosi is the president of the United States.
You know where this is going, right? Silly contrarian opinion which makes no sense.
I've been to the White House, and I've been to Nancy's house, and I know they're not the same place.
Well, one is in DC and the other is in SF, so it's hard to confuse them. But the point of the sentence is that Phil "is important and goes to important places."
But on the question of who is really leading the country at the moment, whether you like it or not, the evidence is strong that it is not Barack Obama but the speaker.
Except Pelosi would not surge in Afghanistan, and we would have already health care reformed if Pelosi was running the country, instead of Blanche Lincoln.
We told you it does not make sense.
It's actually quite surreal in some ways. Pelosi has a liberal congress to work with, so she can push progressive legislation. But, as Phil should be aware, for the law to get to the President's desk, it has to pass the Senate. In the Senate, we have Republicans who have given up on serving the country and oppose everything on political grounds. So Obama does not get to see Pelosi's stuff, but, if anything, a watered down version of it because it has to satisfy all 60 Democrats.
And Phil's lesson is? Pelosi is Obama's daddy! For Phil, the dialectic is between Obama and Pelosi, and the undermining work of the Republicans does not exist.
Who's in charge in D.C.? Not who you think
Nancy Pelosi is the president of the United States.
You know where this is going, right? Silly contrarian opinion which makes no sense.
I've been to the White House, and I've been to Nancy's house, and I know they're not the same place.
Well, one is in DC and the other is in SF, so it's hard to confuse them. But the point of the sentence is that Phil "is important and goes to important places."
But on the question of who is really leading the country at the moment, whether you like it or not, the evidence is strong that it is not Barack Obama but the speaker.
Except Pelosi would not surge in Afghanistan, and we would have already health care reformed if Pelosi was running the country, instead of Blanche Lincoln.
We told you it does not make sense.
It's actually quite surreal in some ways. Pelosi has a liberal congress to work with, so she can push progressive legislation. But, as Phil should be aware, for the law to get to the President's desk, it has to pass the Senate. In the Senate, we have Republicans who have given up on serving the country and oppose everything on political grounds. So Obama does not get to see Pelosi's stuff, but, if anything, a watered down version of it because it has to satisfy all 60 Democrats.
And Phil's lesson is? Pelosi is Obama's daddy! For Phil, the dialectic is between Obama and Pelosi, and the undermining work of the Republicans does not exist.
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
The Chron: Out of Touch with SF Readers.
For some reasons (we read the paper online, mostly, and we check once in a while what nonsense a specific writer - Carolyn Lochhead, Carla Marinucci, Phil Bronstein- would write) we missed out on this hilarious editorial:
Idea of sex tent is way out of line. Thanks to the SF Appeal for finding this pearl.
Editorial goes:
Public sex tents? Now there's an idea that should have been shot down the second it was announced from the mouth of a member of the "leather community" in response to complaints about public sex at Folsom Street Fair and its smaller sibling fair, Up Your Alley.
Sex tent are terrible ideas, according to the Chron. It's better than in-plain-sight public sex, but, goes the Chron, that should not happen either. So what's to do? No smooching at the Folsom Street Fair, says the Chron. SFPD must enforce no-public-sex state laws.
Fair enough, we concede, it's the reliably conservative stance we expect from the Chronicle. Most likely, whoever wrote this lives in Walnut Creek and is far removed from their days having steamy trysts in a car at Twin Peaks. Also typically conservative: fear of sex, and a wish to regulate other people's sex lives.
But guys: who are you writing for, your Marin County cohort? They won't be at the Folsom Street fair, so why would they care if the SFPD enforces the law? And your SF readers? Maybe they want to have sex in a tent on Folsom Street.
So writing this editorial, you did manage to titillate and satisfy your retired readership, and offend the bulk of SF. And, hint, hint, Chron, if you intend to survive, your older readers, they're stuck with you. It's maybe the leather community you should be courting.
Idea of sex tent is way out of line. Thanks to the SF Appeal for finding this pearl.
Editorial goes:
Public sex tents? Now there's an idea that should have been shot down the second it was announced from the mouth of a member of the "leather community" in response to complaints about public sex at Folsom Street Fair and its smaller sibling fair, Up Your Alley.
Sex tent are terrible ideas, according to the Chron. It's better than in-plain-sight public sex, but, goes the Chron, that should not happen either. So what's to do? No smooching at the Folsom Street Fair, says the Chron. SFPD must enforce no-public-sex state laws.
Fair enough, we concede, it's the reliably conservative stance we expect from the Chronicle. Most likely, whoever wrote this lives in Walnut Creek and is far removed from their days having steamy trysts in a car at Twin Peaks. Also typically conservative: fear of sex, and a wish to regulate other people's sex lives.
But guys: who are you writing for, your Marin County cohort? They won't be at the Folsom Street fair, so why would they care if the SFPD enforces the law? And your SF readers? Maybe they want to have sex in a tent on Folsom Street.
So writing this editorial, you did manage to titillate and satisfy your retired readership, and offend the bulk of SF. And, hint, hint, Chron, if you intend to survive, your older readers, they're stuck with you. It's maybe the leather community you should be courting.
Oh, the use of the Passive Form in the Chronicle.
Carolyn Lochhead writes:
The escape ... Osama Bin Laden in [Tora Bora] battle has never received the attention it should. Committee chairman John Kerry tried to make the point in his failed presidential bid against former President George W. Bush but it never caught fire,...
Nevertheless, the circumstances of the Tora Bora failure surely will go down as one of the great bungles in U.S. foreign policy and military history, and the official committee report, like an earlier report on the 9/11 attacks, is well written, well-researched, and well worth reading.
Gee, I wonder why Kerry's attempt to make the point during his campaign against George Bush fizzled. Maybe it has to do with the fact that, covering that campaign, Carolyn Lochhead showed no interest in it?
Because, after all, it was a national security issue and that had to take a backseat to whether or not John Kerry looked French and elitist and ordered green tea in a restaurant.
So "it never caught fire" is just the passive form of "I could not care less."
The escape ... Osama Bin Laden in [Tora Bora] battle has never received the attention it should. Committee chairman John Kerry tried to make the point in his failed presidential bid against former President George W. Bush but it never caught fire,...
Nevertheless, the circumstances of the Tora Bora failure surely will go down as one of the great bungles in U.S. foreign policy and military history, and the official committee report, like an earlier report on the 9/11 attacks, is well written, well-researched, and well worth reading.
Gee, I wonder why Kerry's attempt to make the point during his campaign against George Bush fizzled. Maybe it has to do with the fact that, covering that campaign, Carolyn Lochhead showed no interest in it?
Because, after all, it was a national security issue and that had to take a backseat to whether or not John Kerry looked French and elitist and ordered green tea in a restaurant.
So "it never caught fire" is just the passive form of "I could not care less."
