"Next on Jackal News [urgent music and graphics] many white Americans are feeling disenfranchised in Ohio. It appears that small rural precincts had faulty equipment and were understaffed. This resulted in extremely long lines causing many potential voters to leave the polls so that they could go to work."
Raleigh O'Williams: "That's right Diana. It appears that many rural whites have been disenfranchised in Ohio. In addition to long lines, it appears that there was much confusion about where people were supposed to vote. On top of that, one polling place in a housing project in Cleveland reported over 5,500 votes for Kerry when there were only 3,566 voters registered there."
Caller #1: "Mr. O'Williams I know you are a political independent so let me run this by you. If these voting anomalies were truly accidental, wouldn't they have occurred more evenly across the state? Why were the anomalies most likely to disenfranchise people who live in Evangelical Christian communities?"
Raleigh O'Williams: "Because, caller, they are not accidents or anomalies. These are direct attempts to fool the American people and destroy their democracy. The democrats have no shame, they are willing to stop true Americans from having their political voice."
Caller #1: "Why aren't the other news shows carrying this story?"
Raleigh O'Williams: "Because of the left-wing bias. The liberals are in favor of affirmative action in the elections. They want to make each white male vote only worth 3/5 of a whole person. Read the constitution, you'll see that there is a historic precedence for this!"
Caller #1: "You're right. I think I do remember something about that from my high-school civics classes. Thanks Mr. O'Williams. You always look out for us poor defenseless white guys."
Caller #2: "Mr. O'Williams since it has already been shown that the election was not close enough for the anomalies to affect the outcome of the election, why should we bother with investigations and recounts?"
Raleigh O'Williams: "That's simple. If the democrats can get away with disenfranchising the affluent white vote today, they'll have no deterrent to prevent this from happening in the future. We have to be willing to examine ourselves and fix our electoral problems. It's the only way we can set a good example for Iraq and their upcoming elections."
Caller #3: "Mr. O'Williams, I'm a Democrat and I'd just like to say that I want every vote in Ohio to be counted. I don't care what color your skin is, where you're from, or what place of worship you go to. I believe in our democracy and I think that most Democrats would agree with me. Why are you using this inflammatory rhetoric against all democrats? It's obvious that something was corrupt here. I want to make sure it doesn't happen again. Can't all Americans unite on this issue?"
Raleigh O'Williams: You've got to be kidding! You democrats don't care about democracy. All you care about is keeping hold on your power. All you want to do is tax and spend! Fiscal responsibility you say! [caller tries to explain himself more clearly]! Hey! Cut off the call! I don't want this caller trying to confuse my viewers!"
"Jackal News has an update coming from Columbus, OH. Apparently white men are taking to the streets, marching up to the state capital to demand that the votes be counted. It's a beautiful and unprecidented sight. Some people say that this event is even more awe inspiring than MLK's "I have a Dream" speech..."
Please note: The names are barely made up so that the guilty are not protected. The problems are real but reversed. I'm sure you didn't need me to tell you that.
Okay. I last posted about the controversy caused by a commercial made by The United Church of Christ. This commercial is not being shown on major networks because it is "too controversial." However, I haven't heard of any controversy about this ad. I would say that this even offended me (although it took me about 30 seconds to get over it and start laughing).
So Happy Christmahanukwanzaka to you!!!
I'm deeply concerned about the state of my mind today. It appears that I have agreed (at least partially) with the Rev. Jerry Falwell. He actually sounded pretty reasonable. I'm talking about his reaction (or at least part of his reaction) to NBC and Viacom's decisions not to air an ad for the United Church of Christ. He appeared on CNN's Crossfire and actually said that he felt the ad should be aired.
The United Church of Christ is making two statements. One, everyone is welcome to attend the Church of Christ, which hopefully is true in every church in America, though I doubt that it's true. And certainly it is at Thomas Road Church in Lynchburg. (Source: CNN's Crossfire detailed link below).
He's saying that he knows that people have been made to feel uncomfortable in certain churches and that everyone should be invited. He also went on to say that he disagreed with the UCC's position on homosexuality but that he felt that everyone should be welcomed into church.
I don't believe that heterosexuals who are promiscuous or homosexuals should be rewarded for their misbehavior, but they should be, should be invited to, allowed into church and preached the Gospel to.
Now, if Jerry Falwell can say that he disagrees with the UCC's position on homosexuality but that he thinks the ad should be aired, why are the networks afraid of it? Homosexuality isn't mentioned directly in the ad. In fact the bit in question (I think) is where they show two women standing close together and one puts an arm on the other's shoulder. I honestly didn't take the ad that way at all.
For those of you who have not yet viewed the ad, it is available at www.stillspeaking.com. For those of you that have slow connections I will summarize. There are two Aryan-looking guys standing in front of a large stone church building. They are acting as bouncers and are turning away people who are trying to enter and only seem to be allowing affluent looking whites to enter.
When I saw it, I saw it as more of a socio-economic message...but maybe that's just my own prejudices coloring my view. I am well aware of churches that are more concerned with bringing in people with deep pockets than people who want to serve a higher power. I think it is disgusting that Viacom and NBC are saying that a message of inclusiveness is too controversial for their viewers. They said that the ad implied that same-sex couples are welcome and that since the Executive Branch of our government has advocated defining marriage as a bond between a man and a woman that the ad was too controversial. I just don't get it.
Is it so controversial that a religious organization would disagree with members of the government? Haven't the networks aired ads against abortion (made by religious groups) when Clinton was doing his abortion should be "legal, safe and rare" initiative? It seems to me the networks are censoring messages that they disagree with rather than just trying to stay out of contentious issues. Is this a neo-totalitarianism? (Is that even a word)? By neo-totalitarianism I mean is the media squelching dissent on its own without direct government involvement? Maybe I'm just nuts...
[EDIT]: I should disclose that I have have had involvement with the United Church of Christ so my opinions could be colored by that experience. For several years I worked for a youth program that was founded by a UCC minister and sometimes utilized UCC churches.
Sources
Jerry Falwell quotes are from CNN's Crossfire Transcripts http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0412/02/cf.01.html
Viacom's rejection of the UCC's ad:
http://www.stillspeaking.com/news/release2.html.