New idea: the Indy should disclose, tar, and feather each contributor, editor, or person with an ownership stake that voted for the Dems, has joined or supported a union, or has a major that ends in "Studies" or contains "Sociology/Political Science". After all, what is good for the Goose is good for the Gander.
Chacon covered me when I was at the City. He got me in a lot of hot water (not due to my fault, it was just a political thing at that point), but I never blamed him. As John Leavitt (formerly of City Communications) once told me, Chacon is a highly ethical reporter.
sum things up, not some things up. Stupid typo.
"How horrible it must be to have to make things up in order to feel good about yourself."
Great way to some things up. See my first comment.
It appears the gazette editorials I linked are not displaying correctly. Let me try again:
Did you bother to read either (a) the linked picture that you are terming as offensive; or (b) the editorial itself; or even (c) the specific "so politically incorrect that big-city mayors might harm anyone who repeats it" language.? Or are you merely going off of ColoradoPols talking points?
Let's start with point (a). You say that linked picture was offensive. However, even you note that it was ANTI-CHICK-FIL-A. Specifically (and as you hid from your readers), the photo states "We didn't invent homophobia, We just inexplicably endorse it." As anybody looking at this realizes, and you buried within your column, this is a clear parody of the Chick-Fil-A slogan of "We didnt invent the chicken, just the chicken sandwich." As such, the linked picture is obviously PROCIVIL UNION satire aimed at MAKING FUN OF CHICK-FIL-A. Of course, given that the picture is actually PROCIVIL UNION, your entire argument collapses like a house of cards.
But wait - it gets better!
Because you see, we still have point (b). You obviously didn't read the editorial and possibly have not been paying attention to the entire Chick-Fil-A controversy over its inception. No worries there, I understand that writing ground breaking editorials like the above is time consuming, so I'll quickly get you up to speed. The background of this story is that the leadership of Chick-Fil-A has been exposed in recent days as opposing civil unions. Now I personally I disagree with this (for video proof, see the following of me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOArnNyijkI ). However, the problem is that the mayors of several cities (such as Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco) have taken their mere disagreement too far - they have sought to inappropriately use their office to pressure Chick-Fil-A into not having stores in their cities. It was this LATTER action that Wayne was writing in opposition to...not in opposition to the overall idea that striving for civil unions was a worthy policy goal.
Don't believe me? Maybe try OPENING and READING the editorial. What does it say at the bottom of the same "politically incorrect" editorial that you criticize?
"The Gazette’s editorial board has asked Colorado legislators to allow same-sex unions and marriages. We neither advocate nor oppose nonheterosexual relationships, but firmly believe the state should have no role in validating or condemning consensual intimacy among adults. Our country is built on a law that says government shall not interfere with expressions and exercises of religion. We are a country in which individuals are protected in expressing and exercising most radical ideas and endeavors. We support freedom of religion and peaceable association."
Please try explaining how supporting civil unions is politically incorrect. Seriously - I'll be waiting for you to do that as I'm sure your editors at the Independent would LOVE that view.
/sarcasm...and as an FYI, here are listing of the Gazette's pro-civil union editorials:
And now let's move onto point (c), namely that first statement that you quoted:
"WARNING: The following statement is so politically incorrect that big-city mayors might harm anyone who repeats it."
It is quite noteworthy that YOU FAILED to quote the immediately succeeding line which stated:
“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.” — Barack Obama, August 2008."
The clear point of this statement was to make fun of Boston's stance against Chick-Fil-A. For if Chick-Fil-A should be thrown out of Boston merely for supporting traditional marriage, then clearly Obama should be tarred and feathered there as well for having previously supported the same.
So let's review. You mischaracterized the linked picture, making your entire argument collapse like a house of cards. Then you didn't even bother to read the editorial in question which actually indicated not opposition to gay marriage, but rather opposition to using the long arm of government to terrorize opponents of gay marriage for exercising their first amendment rights. And finally, you dishonestly mischaracterized the "so politically incorrect" language which was obviously never intended to say that "God Hates Fagz" and instead was designed to poke fun at Barack Obama.
At this point you have so many errors and mistakes in this piece that you basically have two choices: admit you were mistaken and retract and apologize to Wayne Laugesen or stay silent out of stupid pride and have everybody realize that you do not have a shred of honesty to your editorial. I for one, as a somewhat regular Independent reader and a friend of Chet Hardin's, hope that it is the former and not the latter.
Chet, I spearheaded that rally in my personal capacity in my personal time using my personal resources, which I have made abundantly clear.
All content © Copyright 2013, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation