Tag Archives: tim tebow

Tim Tebow anti-choice ad not harmless

I watched the infamous Tim Tebow anti-choice Super Bowl ad, and I have to conclude that it isn’t harmless. That it skirts around its objective — the subjugation of women — probably makes it even more dangerous because it wishes to appear to be harmless. (The title of the book Friendly Fascism comes to mind right now…)

No, I didn’t expect to see a shrieking bloody embryo in the ad, but the ad gets its anti-choice message across nonetheless. At the end of the ad, which features friendly sounding singers in the background, is the message: “For the full Tebow story go to FocusOnTheFamily.com” and “Celebrate family. Celebrate life.” 

If nothing else, the 30-second ad directs the viewer to the website of the “Christo”fascist group Focus on the Family. CBS probably wouldn’t have aired an ad for any other hate group, but it aired the ad for Focus on the Family.

The Nation sums it up well:

The Tim Tebow/Pam Tebow [Super Bowl] ad has finally aired, and it is about as vanilla as an Andy Williams Christmas special. This is none too surprising. After all, CBS actually co-produced the ad to run seamlessly with the rest of its slick Super Bowl coverage.

This has the anti-choice right wing on the blogs mocking the National Organization for Women and Planned Parenthood for “making a big deal over nothing.” But the concerns of NOW and Planned Parenthood were absolutely spot-on when you saw the final shot of the ad: “This message is brought to you by Focus on the Family.”

The idea that Focus on the Family — an organization that believes in reparative therapy for LGBT people, that likens abortion rights to the Nazi holocaust, and that has shadowy connections to open hate groups — gets this kind of a mammoth public forum is an absolute disgrace.

As for the ad, Pam Tebow speaks about the choice to ignore her doctor’s advice and risk her own life. She has every right to stand on a soapbox with her hunky, Heisman-winning son, and tell other women about the benefits of ignoring your doctor.

But the idea that CBS would provide the platform for such a message without so much as a medical disclaimer is simply wrong.

Also, the idea that Focus on the Family, an organization that stands unequivocally for the view that other women should be denied Pam Tebow’s choice, would get this kind of prime commercial real estate exposes CBS as a frighteningly fraudulent operation.

They should offer free commercial time to Planned Parenthood. And if Roe v. Wade is ever deemed unconstitutional, I hope the executives at CBS ponder their role in this process. Maybe it will cross their minds when they are taking their daughters on a first-class trip to France for legal, safe abortions.

Somewhere, Edward R. Murrow weeps.

Well, Murrow has been crying uncontrollably for some years now, starting no later than when the major American television networks acted not as critical journalists, but as “embedded” cheerleaders for the unelected Bush regime’s “shock and awe” when it launched its bogus Vietraq War in March 2003. The networks treated this “shock and awe” like a fucking sporting event — like the Super Bowl.

That was when I stopped watching television.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tim Tebow nativity story false?

FILE - In this Jan. 1, 2010 photo, Florida quarterback Tim Tebow ...

Associated Press photo

CBS will show football star Tim Tebow’s anti-choice ad paid for by the radical-right group Focus on the Family during the Super Bowl, but reportedly has turned down an ad for a gay men’s dating service. Meanwhile, the circumstances of Tebow’s nativity have been called into question. But the most important question of all still remains: When do we get to see him nekkid???

Shit, with all of the controversy surrounding the impending Tim “I’m Sure Glad That My Mama Didn’t Abort Me!” Tebow anti-choice Super Bowl commercial coming up, Focus on the Family could have saved its $2 million-something for the ad, since we all know the story by now.

But is the story true?

According to Wikipedia,

Tebow was born on August 14, 1987, in Manila in the Philippines to Bob and Pam Tebow, who were serving as Christian missionaries at the time.

While pregnant, Pam suffered a life-threatening infection with a pathogenic ameba. Because of the drugs used to rouse her from a coma and to treat her [amebic] dysentery, the fetus experienced a severe placental abruption. Doctors expected a stillbirth and recommended an abortion to protect her life[, but] she carried Timothy to term and both [of them] survived.

That’s a story to warm a wingnut’s cold, cold heart, but apparently the doctors were trying to prevent Pam Tebow’s death. I don’t think that they were hell bent on snuffing out her unborn child.

However, an interesting twist to the Touching Tebow Birth Story is that, according to an article in AlterNet:

In a series of new interviews, the first of which was given to RadarOnline, high-profile attorney Gloria Allred argues that Pam Tebow’s heartwarming story omits a rather significant detail that renders the whole thing suspicious: namely, the fact that abortion was illegal in the Philippines in 1987.

Indeed, abortion has been illegal in the Philippines since the 1930s, even in cases of rape or incest or if the mother’s health is in danger.

According to Radar:

Allred says she believes it an impossible scenario to believe that Philippine doctors would [have] ever suggested abortion as a viable option for Tebow in the first place.

And when you learn that physicians and midwives who perform abortions in the Philippines face six years in prison, and may have their licenses suspended or revoked, and that women who receive abortions — no matter the reason — may be punished with imprisonment for two to six years, it’s easy to see why.

Stay tuned. Hopefully we will learn soon whether the Tebow Nativity Fable is apocryphal or not.

Hell, I’m surprised that Pam Tebow doesn’t just claim that Little Timmy, God’s Gift to Football If Not to Mankind, was an immaculate conception. You know, she was visited by an angel wearing a golden football helmet or something… 

After all, Wikipedia also notes:

All of the Tebow children were home-schooled by [Pam Tebow], who worked to instill the family’s Christian beliefs along the way. In 1996, legislation was passed in Florida allowing home-schooled students to compete in local high school sporting events.

The rest, of course, is history; now all of that home-schooling will pay off as Tiny Tim delivers a misogynist, anti-choice message to the world.

But seriously, that Tim Tebow was home-schooledwow.

No wonder he wears scriptural references painted on his face like a Jesus-freak drag queen.

I have at least a little bit of sympathy for him now that I didn’t have just hours ago. Given his indoctrinating parents, it appears as though he didn’t have much of a choice except to become a Bible-thumper.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

More assorted shit

If the United States of America is so damned big and bad, then why are we so fucking obsessed with the threat (real or imagined) of terrorism?

When were we ever 100 percent safe? Why don’t we fear our cars, since we’re much more likely to die in an automobile accident than we are to die in a terrorist attack? 

Today The Associated Press has not one, but at least two, news items on security for the Super Bowl: “Protecting Against a ‘Lone Wolf’ at the Super Bowl” and “X-mas Bomb Attempt Prods Super Bowl Security Change.”

You know what I’m hoping for?

I’m hoping that members of Code Pink crash the Super Bowl.

They’re good at getting into events — here is a photo of Code Pink members crashing the lie fest — er, testimony — of former Secretary of State Condoleezza “You Know She’s Lying When Her Lips Are Moving” Rice:

— and they never actually harm anyone.

The Code Pink activists are hated because they stand up to The Man, an act that the brainwashed masses deem to be “crazy.” In a democracy, you see, you’re just supposed to just shut the fuck up and let the stupid white men run the show. They know better than you do. I mean, the current state of the nation after the eight years of the Bush-Cheney administration is proof of that. And dissent is uber-unpatriotic, you terrorist-lovin’ pinko. Real patriots march in lockstep with their all-white-male leaders. Every true patriot knows that.

I recently wrote:

What the fuck is with the widespread belief that others’ beliefs, no matter how insane and potentially oppressive or even dangerous to others, should be held by all of us as sacrofuckingsanct?

We are allowed to believe whatever we want to believe, but when we believe that others should be oppressed or subjugated, that’s a fucking problem, because our beliefs that others should be oppressed or subjugated often end up in actual oppression or subjugation. Actions often follow beliefs. Hate speech, for instance, often leads to hate crimes. And it’s the hateful beliefs that precede the hate speech.

So just now I read a piece on the murder conviction on Friday of wingnut warrior Scott Roeder, who in May 2009 shot to death — in a church — Dr. George Tiller, who had provided abortions in Kansas.

Here is the money shot of the piece:

During closing arguments Friday, [defense attorney Mark] Rudy urged the jury to reject the murder charge. “No one,” he said, “should be convicted based on his convictions.”

Rudy mentioned leaders who stood up for their beliefs, including Martin Luther King Jr. They were “celebrated individuals (who) stood up and made the world a better place.”

So Scott Roeder was just another Martin Luther King Jr., you see. Except that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was gunned down in cold blood, just like Dr. George Tiller was. And Scott Roeder gunned down George Tiller. (Don’t try to understand the “logic”; it will just give you a sick headache.)

Tell you what: After Scott Roeder is gunned down like the dog that he is, then maybe, just maybe, we can start comparing him to someone else who was assassinated. Until then, he isn’t a martyr. He’s an assassin, a murderer. And he was convicted of murder, not convicted of having believed something.

You gotta love his “defense,” though.

I suppose that I could have assassinated “President” George W. Bush and been compared to Martin Luther King Jr. for having done so. After all, if Tiller was responsible for taking innocent lives and therefore his killer was a hero like MLK, well, mass murderer George W. Bush is responsible for having taken many more innocent lives, including the lives of more than 4,300 U.S. troops who have died as a result of his bogus Vietraq War for the war profits of Dick Cheney’s war-profiteering Halliburton and the other war-profiteering subsidiaries of BushCheneyCorp — and the lives of thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis, whom he permanently “liberated.”

You know, wingnuts, you really don’t want to go down that path, that one’s beliefs justify killing others. You lost the Civil War to us blue-staters, remember.

Speaking of abortion, The Associated Press reports today that New Repugnican Hero Scott Brown is pro-choice:

Republican Sen.-elect Scott Brown of Massachusetts says he opposes federal funding for abortions, but thinks women should have the right to choose whether to have one.

Brown tells ABC’s “This Week” that he disagrees with his party’s position that the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion [Roe v. Wade] should be overturned.

Brown says the abortion question is one that’s best handled by a woman, her family and her doctor. He also says more effort needs to go into reducing the number of abortions in the U.S.

Brown has said the GOP shouldn’t take his vote for granted on every issue. He says he’s fiscally conservative but more moderate on social issues….

I’m not sure how much of Brown’s stance is out of political necessity, given that he’s in the blue state of Massachusetts, and how much of it is out of any actual sanity, but I think it’s funny that the wingnuts — who would prefer Brown to say, like wingnut football hero Tim Tebow has said, that he’s happy that his mama didn’t abort him — don’t have Brown on board with them on the issue of women’s right to have control over their own fucking uteri.

Speaking of fiscal conservatives, I’m totally down with fiscal conservatism — the taxpayers’ dollars should be spent judiciously and responsibly — but I have a real fucking problem with the Repugnicans’ philosophy of spending hundreds and hundreds of billions of the taxpayers’ dollars on the war profiteers via bogus wars but refusing to spend the taxpayers’ dollars on the taxpayers. 

Where in the fuck were the cries of “fiscal conservatism!” when the unelected BushCheneyCorp created a record federal budget deficit, with most of that money funneled to the traitors who comprise the military-industrial complex?

Um, yeah.

A little more on John Edwards, and then hopefully I’ll never feel compelled to write about the loser again.

While I have no plan to buy former Edwards aide Andrew Young’s tell-all book The Politician, I found this recent reportage from Salon.com’s War Room to be interesting:

Young’s book also elaborates on the now-dominant theme of Edwards as a narcissist on an epic scale. If half of what the book says is true, the candidate’s obsession with his appearance was, if anything, underestimated during the campaign.

Preoccupied with the appearance of his hair and his weight, he scorned state fairgoers as “rednecks” who would try to force feed him. According to Young, Edwards delivered one line that seems a bit too perfect: “I know I’m the people’s senator, but do I have to hang out with them?”

I never bought Edwards’ supposed populism, which is why I never supported him for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Do I blame Edwards for not being thrilled to be hanging out with rednecks? No. I’m not thrilled to hang out with rednecks, either. They tend to be not very bright, not very curious, and they tend to fear — and to oppress and even to aggress upon — those who don’t look, act and believe just like they do.

But the difference between Edwards and me is that I don’t lie about my feelings about rednecks.

Finally, I like this line in an AlterNet piece about why the U.S. Supreme Court fucked up when the five wingnuts on it ruled that corporations have the First Amendment right to spend an unlimited amount of money on political ads: “Simply put: money is not speech [and] corporations are not people.”

Yup. I especially believe the latter part: corporations are not people.

One certainly could argue that money is needed to disseminate one’s message, but the First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nothing in there about corporations having the same rights as do individual people — nothing about corporations in there at all — and the courts have ruled consistently that what appear (correctly or incorrectly) to be restraints on free speech are constitutional if they are content neutral.

Restraining corporate influence on the national political dialogue is not about suppressing individuals’ free speech; to the contrary, it’s about ensuring that the individual’s voice is not completely drowned out in the national dialogue by Big Money.

To allow that to happen would be to hasten the conversion of our democracy into a complete corporatocracy, which has been going on for some decades now.

No one who understands and cares about our democracy would be OK with its hostile takeover by the corporations, which represent the largest threat to our democracy, by far.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tim Tebow, the male Carrie Prejean

FILE - In this Nov. 28, 2009, file photo, Florida quarterback ...

Associated Press photo

Collegiate footballer Tim Tebow of Florida, who wears the abbreviations of Bible verses under his eyes — he probably owns one of those assault rifles with Biblical references on it, too (because the historical Jesus was into football and assault rifles, I’m pretty sure) — says he’s glad that his mother (shown with him in November above) didn’t abort him. (Football players generally aren’t known for their high IQs, and their head injuries tend to make them even duller.) A lot of American women probably wish that Tebow’s mother had nipped him in the bud.

I haven’t paid much attention to the whole Tim Tebow brouhaha, although I did watch this parody anti-abortion Super Bowl ad, which is pretty fucking funny.

Football star Tebow, who has made an anti-choice ad for the Super Bowl for the anti-choice “Christo”fascist group Focus on the Family, tells ESPN (via ABC News) that he’s sure glad that he wasn’t aborted.

Um, OK… That kind of thing can send you into a “Star Trek”-like-alternate-universe-time-and-space-warp kind of mindfuck if you let it, I guess, but in general, were someone to declare to me that he or she sure is glad that he or she wasn’t aborted, I probably would think: It probably would have been better for the gene pool if this dumbfuck had been aborted. 

Tebow’s mother tells ESPN that that her doctor had recommended that he be aborted for medical reasons, but that she knew in her heart that God wanted him to be born, so she refused the abortion.

OK, so (arguably) it worked out OK for the Tebows. The doctor apparently was wrong, as doctors sometimes are.

However, to extrapolate from that one anecdote, or even from several others like it, that all abortions should be prohibited is a stretch at least the size of a football field. 

I don’t hold too much against Tebow. He’s young. He’s stupid. He’s been indoctrinated with “Christian” fascistic bullshit. I mean, if a Muslim football player wore references to the Koran on his face, we’d call him nuts, wouldn’t we? Or at least we’d think him a fantatic — and at least a little bit scary. (Actually, were a Muslim football player actually to try to do that, he probably would be prohibited from doing so.)

In a press conference, Tebow states that those who disagree with his anti-choice stance “can at least respect that I stand up for what I believe.”

Um, many if not most white supremacists stand up for what they believe. Are they respectable?  

What if I believe that we should start throwing the “Christo”fascists to the lions, like in the good old days? Should you just shut the fuck up and respect my beliefs?

What the fuck is with the widespread belief that others’ beliefs, no matter how insane and potentially oppressive or even dangerous to others, should be held by all of us as sacrofuckingsanct?

We are allowed to believe whatever we want to believe, but when we believe that others should be oppressed or subjugated, that’s a fucking problem, because our beliefs that others should be oppressed or subjugated often end up in actual oppression or subjugation. Actions often follow beliefs. Hate speech, for instance, often leads to hate crimes. And it’s the hateful beliefs that precede the hate speech.

I think of Tim Tebow as the male Carrie Prejean. Both of them are young, dumb and brainwashed. She would claim that she just stands up for her beliefs, too. But her beliefs harm an entire group of people who only want equal human and civil rights.

When your beliefs infringe on others’ rights, that’s a fucking problem.

For the record, I am not “pro”-abortion. I don’t relish the idea of abortion. However, unlike the members of the Taliban, I just cannot imagine telling a woman what she may or may not do with her own fucking uterus.

Therefore, I am pro-choice.

Abortion is a choice that, as a man, I’ll never have to make. (And yes, contrary to the wingnuts’ bumper stickers, it is a choice.)

It’s a choice that Tim Tebow never will have to make.

So he probably should shut the fuck up.

And I’m pretty sure that Jesus Christ didn’t die on the cross so that the likes of Tim Tebow and Carrie Prejean — who maybe should get married and give birth to the anti-Christ — could, centuries later, spread hateful, oppressive beliefs in his name.

P.S. CBS is going to air the Super Bowl on February 7. CBS refused to air a pro-gay-rights ad in 2004, saying that it doesn’t run advocacy ads. You can sign CREDO Action’s petition to pressure CBS to drop its hypocrisy and its double standard by clicking here.

I would boycott CBS, except that I don’t watch television anyway (I’m an Internet addict)…

Finally, for those fucktards who cry “censorship,” censorship is the actual prevention of CBS from running the radical right’s anti-women’s-rights ad. CBS is not going to be prevented from running the ad, which would be censorship. CBS may run the ad, but CBS should expect fallout if it does.

Boycotts and political pressure aren’t censorship — they are free speech. They are forms of free speech that the radical right uses all the fucking time. The wingnuts should expect it right back.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized