Dude! Joe's Jottings, Mostly Junk

• "The homosexual lobbies fully support the invasive body cavity searches of elderly citizens, small children, young women and the absurd and dangerous X-Ray machines that scan the human form in minute detail— anybody and everybody for little security reasons whatsoever." - October 24, 2012
• It was worse than I ever imagined. Row after row of boxes bulging with pro-homosexual petitions lined the walls, stacked to the ceiling. My mind reeled as I realized hundreds, maybe thousands, more boxes were already loaded on the tractor-trailers. [...] Driving away, my eyes filled with tears as I realized he might be right. This time the Radical Homosexuals could win.
• [An open Letter to Mitt Romney on who should be his VP candidate] “Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Reagan, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Joe Farah, or Chuck Norris would be a great pick from just ten top conservative leaders,”
  

Another (very specifically fundraising) letter he wrote mentions dangerous legislation like

• 1) The Homosexual Classrooms Act, requiring every school — even private and religious schools — to teach appalling homosexual acts.

• 2) The Offense to Marriage Act, repealing the Defense of Marriage Act which has stood for over a decade against the Homosexual Lobby.
  If passed, wedding gown-clad men smooching before some left-wing clergyman or state official is just the beginning.
  You’ll see men hand-in-hand skipping down to adoption centers to “pick out” a little boy for themselves.
  

• 3) The Gay Bill of Special Rights, granting special job rights to homosexuals. Every homosexual fired or not hired becomes a potential federal civil rights lawsuit.
  Radical homosexuals will terrorize day cares, hospitals and churches.

culminating, of course, with "In fact, if I’m to effectively defeat even one of these bills, I’m going to need an immediate influx of funds." - Fear-mongering, hatred, and an annoyingly active imagination unable to see reality in the slightest, and his flock should give him money for that. 

How detached from reality is he? He even made a post (I think a tweet, but I can't recall now) about how "his" Sterling so overwhelmingly voted Republican in November (facts? Obama took 65%, Kaine took 68% - both contributing to their late-night wins once the votes were counted - and within Sterling, Wolf was in the minority, though he took his district thanks to Fauquier and Winchester, not Loudoun which went 50/50).  A few hours later, he took that one down.

By the way, the mailing list of people who love to read that kind of stuff?  In the months prior to the election, he sold it.  To Bachmann, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, likely more.

He personally takes home about $171,000 a year writing this stuff, according to analysis of public tax filings.  And this is a 'non-profit' advocacy group, btw.  And that's on top of his PACs, his investments, and his income from the Loudoun Board.  He actually primarily lives in Falls Church (ironically because it has better schools for his kids, who knew?).

And no, I have NO intention of linking to to those pages...but he clearly owns it, as shown by the whois records for the domain.

But no, he's not one who "hates" and there is no "hate" in Sterling, except against him.

Really.

Today, Christianity is the dominant culture. So, instead of story of a olive skinned middle-eastern, unwed, pregnant mother, who was seen as little more than property, giving birth to what the world would surely see as an illegitimate child who was wrapped in what rags they could find and placed in a smelly, flea infested feeding trough in the midst of a dark musky smelling animal stall… instead of that story, we end up with a clean, white skinned European woman giving birth to a glowing baby wrapped in impossibly white swaddling clothes and laid to rest in a manger that looks more like a crib than a trough in the midst of a barn that is more kept and clean than many of our houses.

So, “War on Christmas?,” sure sign me up. I'm pretty sure I'd prefer the elimination of what our modern “celebration” has become to the increasingly white-washed version we hear every year.

But there’s a second reason why pointing out this coincidence is reasonable and that is its inherently xenophobic nature. Romney may not be in the KKK and he may not personally be a racist, but phrases like “keep America American” appeal explicitly to American xenophobia and prejudice. It’s the kind of anti-immigration sentiment that has justified a wide range of oppressive policies over the past two centuries, aimed at pretty much every group that settled here — including white Europeans like the Irish. So racism is only part of the problem of tribalistic bigotry, and that is the kind of fearmongering being exploited by Romney’s use of that phrase.

There is nothing more American than immigration and the blending of different races, ethnicities and religions. That is the quintessential element of American life. Sadly, there have always been pockets of resistance to that idea. In every age, the immigrant is demonized and targeted by rhetoric like “keep America American.” And Romney should be held to account for trying to tap that vein of bigotry for political gain.

There was a time, admittedly so long ago that liberals freely roamed the political landscape, when banks made profits and didn’t have to have to gouge customers. In fact, they made profits, and debit cards hadn’t even been invented yet (terrifying, isn’t it, kids?). How did they do this?

These days, big technology companies — particularly those in the hypercompetitive smartphone and tablet industries — are starting to resemble Hollywood film studios. Every release needs to be a blockbuster, and the only measure of success is the opening-weekend gross. There is little to no room for the sleeper indie hit that builds good word of mouth to become a solid performer over time.

When Microsoft released the Xbox 360 in 2005, there were widespread reliability issues and the console faced serious competition from the Nintendo Wii, yet the company stayed the course, and now the Xbox is one of the best-selling video game consoles of all time. That kind of tenacity seems to be in diminishing supply.

Some analysts trace the origin of this blockbuster-or-bust mentality to Apple. Each release of the company’s popular iPads and iPhones crosses over into being a mainstream media event

In the conflict between big and small I tend to come down on the side of small. We’re recovering from the worst recession in a generation and big companies aren’t doing a damn thing to help. They don’t pay taxes, they don’t create jobs, they don’t spend money, and as a result the economy is under-stimulated. Large U.S. corporations have restructured themselves to avoid taxation, they see their primary function as increasing productivity which means decreasing employment, they have their highest profits ever and are sitting on $2 trillion in cash that they aren’t going to spend.

In contrast to this, small and medium-sized businesses, which are responsible for all new job creation in this country, can’t get banks to loan them any money to fund those new jobs.

The priorities of American big businesses are completely screwed-up while small businesses are, for the most part, ignored.

Why is Google+ growing so quickly?

So I'll posit that a major factor in grade inflation is the increased competition for graduate school slots. This has led to B's and C's having a much stronger influence on students. At the same time, students have become more willing, when possible, to avoid courses that are graded harder. While it might seem that if everyone is getting high grades, that high grades don't matter. But if you don't have a high GPA, then you stand out as a poor student--there is a rachet effect that pushes grades upwards.

If we want to reduce grade inflation, then we have to stop making grades so critical for acceptance into increasingly selective 'good' graduate programs. Until then, grade inflation it is. The good news, I suppose, is that grades can't get any higher...

If a female stranger is wary around you, it is not because she suspects you are a rapist, or that all men are rapists. It’s because a general level of circumspection is what vigilance requires. Don’t take it personally.

If this frustrates you, try to remember that women are blamed for lapsed vigilance. If a woman does get raped, everyone rushes to see where she let her guard down. Was she drinking? Was she alone? Was she wearing a short skirt? Did she go to a strange man’s room for coffee at 4am?

A woman must be seen to be vigilant as well as be vigilant. If she is deemed insufficiently vigilant, she will be at least partly blamed for any sexual violence that befalls her. If she’s regarded as downright reckless, that “evidence” can be used to completely exonerate her rapist. If it comes down to a he said/she said dispute over whether sex was consensual, as so many rape cases do, the dispute becomes a referendum on whether the woman seems like the sort of reckless person who would have sex with a stranger.