gundamentalist propoganda

The right wing in the USA has many channels by which they push their agenda.

prop·a·gan·da

Noun

Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

The dissemination of such information as a political strategy.

I see this stuff every day, especially on Facebook.

For example:

Woman shoots intruder after she is raped in front of her children

Screen Shot 2013-04-05 at 1.33.33 PM

Kristy Sage, a young mother living in Lemon Grove, California survived a nightmare and wants her story to be told. Her husband was deployed in the Persian Gulf and although her mom lived with her, her mom worked nights, so Kristy was left home alone at night with her two toddler-aged boys.

Knowing that he was to be deployed, Kristy’s husband made sure that she could adequately protect herself while he was away. He bought a 9mm pistol and made sure she knew how to use it. …

What a story!

It’s perfect for the NRA. Almost as if somebody had invented it. 🙂

Jennifer Cruz did invent it. None of that happened.

But it’s posted on a gundamentalist website. And people are obliviously sharing it with friends and family.

Was Jennifer Cruz paid to write that story?

Is she part of a funded network of believers volunteering to write propoganda?

It hasn’t hit Snopes yet, by the way.

I happen to believe that gun owners have some very good arguments. People like Jennifer Cruz undermine the cause. Make them look like extremist wingnuts.

The NRA should be calling out the liars like Cruz. Debunking propagandists.  They’re not.

Advertisements

Darrell Scott’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee

If you’re on Facebook you can’t avoid seeing Mr. Darrell Scott’s impassioned words after his daughter had been killed in the Columbine shooting.

darrell scott

He defends the NRA. And says:

… “We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. … “

I respect Darrell Scott’s position. And am wounded by his loss.

But the testimony has been much warped over time, having been so often spun by Gundamentalists.

Here’s one version of Snope’s clarifications:

That Darrell Scott spoke the words attributed to him is fact. However, the opening and closing comments appended to the Internet-circulated version of them are misleading and erroneous….

Darrell Scott didn’t say anything to our “national leaders,” nor is it true that his testimony was “not received well.” Scott was not delivering testimony to a crowded House chamber full of incredulous, unprepared, and shocked Congressmen; he was talking to a few sub-committee members and a stenographer. He was only one of many people who gave testimony to the Subcommittee on Crime, and it’s unlikely that most Congressmen heard what he said, or even knew that he had testified. His words certainly didn’t prompt outrage from an unreceptive audience, as implied here….

“The media” didn’t prevent anyone from hearing Mr. Scott’s speech; most news outlets simply didn’t give it much coverage because it wasn’t particularly newsworthy.

… Mr. Scott really didn’t offer much of substance, and what he did have to say had already been said earlier and louder by many others. Also as noted above, Mr. Scott was merely one of many people who gave testimony in front of the House Subcommittee on Crime in the wake of the Littleton shootings. Other parents of shooting victims spoke as well, but you won’t find that fact acknowledged here, much less any indication of what they said. Why should their words be any less important than Darrell Scott’s? (Perhaps the reason they’re not mentioned is because their opinions didn’t agree with Mr. Scott’s, and therefore didn’t agree with the opinions of whoever wrote the prologue and coda to this piece.)

… Darrell Scott’s speech was reported by the Associated Press and picked up by several big-city newspapers, hardly evidence of a hostile “media” conspiracy to suppress it and thereby prevent the world at large from hearing it.

read more on Snopes

DON’T GET YOUR FACTS FROM FACEBOOK.

It’s more crap than fact.

A Time / CNN poll mid-January found that 55% of Americans favor stricter gun control, 44% are against.

It’s a good idea to restrict assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

The argument that Americans need defend themselves against the U.S. Army is delusion.

What percentage of American soldiers would be unwilling to invade Texas? … For example.

50%? … 70%?

what is Google+ ???

It’s new.

It’s somewhat similar to Facebook.

It’s by invitation only, so far. (I could send you an invite if you are interested.)

Click PLAY or watch a brief intro on YouTube.

It’s getting heaps of praise from experts.

Facebook is worried.

The little Google +1 symbol is similar to the Facebook LIKE button, but it’s more powerful. When you click that +1 it tells Google to recommend that page in Google search.

I’m just experimenting with the new social network now. So far I like it better than Facebook. In any case, it’s nice to have some real competition for Facebook for the first time.

read more on how it works – Google, takes on Facebook

Zuckerberg cover of MAD magazine

I’ve got to read this edition … Perhaps the first MAD magazine I’ll have read in 30yrs.

… When TechCrunch asked Mad Magazine editor John Ficarra why Mark was on the cover of his humorous periodical, Ficarra replied, “It was a pure business decision. We got a cool $2 mil from the Winklevoss twins to ‘poke’ him a new one.” …

Mashable