Dr. Frank's What's-it

which is what i've been saying all along,in
not so many words. If you're going to like
everyone,like everyone,not just people who agree with you. and now i will indulge in a dorkiness:

tsk tsk Fat Mike I his quirky covers,but
truly so angry...surely he's seen Star Wars:

"...anger,hostilty,these are the tools of
of the Dark Side"

really,who wants to be on Dark Side...yes
I know its just a movie...nonetheless...
we can all be Jedi Knights to each other!
okay ,kinda cheesy...nonetheless...

i'm just saying George Lucas was inspired.

okay i'm done now.

Meesa so glad yousa seeing thisa pointa viewa. Meesa having a starring role in Michael Moorsa's Farenheite 9/11 1/2. Jabba Lucas isa grand visionary.

The writer, and Frank, by endorsing her statement, fails to understand the greater evil.

You can find flaws anywhere, including in San Francisco and New York.

But do San Francisco and New York need to be chastised for failing to "celebrate diversity" or do Salt Lake City, Mobile, and Memphis deserve it a little more?

Be objective.

Who is more closed-minded?

Who is worse at accepting a diversity of views?

Again, this is a case of "reformed liberals" attacking liberalism by using the logic of the liberalism against liberalism itself.

Or, put more simply, what they're saying is this:

That it is closed-minded to not accept the closed-minded.

Which makes no sense.

A. University asks,

"Be objective. Who is more closed-minded? Who is worse at accepting a diversity of views?"

Well I don't know because it's not clear exactly who you mean to compare to whom (are we comparing cities per se? did they give you a hard time in Memphis Tennessee? how/when?), but in almost any pair-off I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the winner is, The a-hole who made this statement:

"When I see a Bush-Cheney bumper sticker on a car, it's time to slash their tires. When I run into a tourist with a Southern accent, I tell them to get the f -- out of San Francisco."

And, by extension, any a-hole who nods their head upon reading that or thinks it clever.

More on censorship due to false consensus:
http://abcnews.com/US/story?id=247437

"He said other students who saw the tryouts and were upset by the [cover of Bob Dylan's Masters of War] presentation discussed it with their parents but are afraid of speaking up because of the political environment within the school and in Boulder, considered the most liberal city in Colorado."

Of course, just because something got censored doesn't mean it deserved to be heard.

I don't really think its a matter of who's
worse or better honestly. I just don't believe anyone is above being considerate enough to not persecute others for their beliefs, whether they
agree with them or not. I also believe that individuals are responsible for their attitudes regarding those beliefs,not those particular cities you name or any group associated with them.

I also believe Fat Mike needs a hug.

o. mi. god. he is like so fucking like punk rock and shit.

who even gives a fuck about fat mike anymore? why did anyone ever? (these are serious questions, someone please explain it to me.)

to whoever wrote the exerpt, it was very eloquent and tastefully written. as for the whole open / close minded debate, i am sick of hearing about it. people are what they are going to be and rarely make the jump from one to the other. let the opens stay doorless and the closed stay shut. who cares? and even though i condiser myself an open minded individual, i try to avoid arrogant proclimations of my open armed brain. self titled open minders casting stones at those they call close minded are contradicting themselves. if you are open minded, you view all things with an unbiased opinion, a clean slate if you will. you weigh out the options of developing an opinion while possibly putting faith in something you didn't beleive in or even new existed before hand. an openess to any and every option or possibility. a close minded individual does the exact opposite. well, how can you be open minded if you are conclusively opposed to the option of viewing things with a closed mind? shouldn't an open minded person at least be open to giving a close minded outlook a whirl? i just find these self-righteous outspoken free minds a bit contradictory. if they are so opposed to a closed minded blanket decision, they shouldn't rule out having a closed mind because they are doing what they preach against. but this is just a big nonsensical rant with little to no substantial value. to tell you the truth, i just thought this up at work the other day and started proposing the theory to my co-workers. i basically did it just to kick up a stir, cause some arguments and catalyze some thought provoking debates. but without trying to be profound in any way, open mindedness is a bit contradictory. so let these words be viewed with your eyes and processed through your brain only to be forgotten.

be open minded, give close mindedness a chance.

luke black.
thank you for your time.

raedy,

why did anyone ever care about fat mike? AHEM... uh, i did. because hes written a few good tunes. please remember, hes only been political for about 3 years now.

his statements are ridiculous, but really, the guy spent the last 4 years trying to get kids to not vote for bush. he probably tried harder than kerry (not that thats saying much). hes got a right to be a little pissed. i think weve all made ignorant comments similar to his in moments of anger and frustration, though i suppose being in his position, knowing it could get printed anywhere, he should probably watch himself.

Open-minded, schmopen minded. Be open minded when you listen to arguments, but feel free to close your mind when the argument fails. There were plenty of good reasons to vote for Bush in this election and plenty of good reasons not to vote for Bush. That doesn't mean we have to be open minded to everyone's beliefs. There are still many people who believe that it is morally wrong for poeple of different races. I'm open minded enough to hear the argument, but I'm skeptical I will still be when they get to QED. I think it is fair to say that many people voted in this election based on beliefs that we don't owe any more open-mindedness towards than we do to Fat Mike's belief in tire-slashing. I just am not convinced that we do benefit from a diversity of politcal ideas on "racism, sexism", whether it is "from the heart" or not.

"I just am not convinced that we do benefit from a diversity of politcal ideas on "racism, sexism", whether it is "from the heart" or not."

id have to agree. and not to mention issues such as gay marriage, stem cell research, and abortion. i mean, do conservatives oppose abortion so teenage girls will drop out of school, and be on welfare, and theyll have more to bitch about?

I think everyone should go and read 'Closing of the American Mind'

"We must respect people's right to vote from their heart."

I love that line. I think something that the hard left is having a hard time grasping is that 51% didn't vote with their hearts. They voted with their heads.

Heart, head, kneecap, whatever. I can respect anyone's right to vote from whichever body part they choose. That doesn't mean I'm not going to call them stupid if I think they're being stupid. I don't know when "respected" became synonymous with "immune from criticism," but I wish it would stop.

And that goes double for "don't judge me" and anyone who's ever said it with a straight face.

I'm not saying you don't have the right to feel
how you want about different views/opinons/left-side/right side/moderate or whatever. I'm just saying its how you express them that counts.

Come,give cheesecake a chance...

I still think Fat Mike needs a hug.

Thanks, but I prefer spooning.

I feel the same way that Fat Mike does when I see a Bush-Cheney sticker, but it is not politically wise to make personal attacks based on Southern accents or paint ourselves to be violent and irresponsible.

However, strong, loud opposition to the lies and poor policy the Bush administration has propagated are entirely proper. In fact, the louder and more widely heard, the better!

while missy makes an interesting point...

I may not agree with what Missy says, but I 'll defend to the death her right to say it.

With great sadness, i returned recently from a two week trip to my beloved San Francisco, my home for almost 20 years and the "open minded, accepting, tolerant" place i abolutely planned to return to to raise my young children. Now,i am now unlikely to do so. I happen to be a pro choice, pro gay marriage individual who also concluded that the Iraq situation would be better served by a fresh face, ie: Kerry. But the extreme comments and criticism I encountered about Bush and anyone who voted for him (stupid, evil,killers, etc.) was beyond disheartening. My experience was reinforced by "Republican" friends who shared that their quality of life had been affected, that in some cases their children had been heckled, and in two cases they were considering leaving the area. These are long time Bay Area residents who are by no means ultra conservative, (but should that even matter?)

Justifying this sort of intolerance with the notion that by accepting those that voted for Bush you are in essence forced to accept the "close minded" seems oddly simplistic. There are dozens of issues in a presidential election and great variation on the value different individuals place on a given issue. AND - there are only two major candidates. I know Bush voters who are pro choice and were strongly opposed to the Iraq war and Kerry voters who are opposed to gay marriage, anti-abortion, and supported the Iraq war. Generalizations about Bush voters seem frankly, unfair, and such intolerance also seems extreme regardless. Child molesting or domestic violence might merit such a reaction, but voting for the other presidential candidate?

I think it appears to much of the country, even to fellow Kerry voters in other states, (my school and neighborhood were strongly Kerry and my city of several million was split down the middle so that there were actually more individual Kerry voters than in San Francisco)that San Francisco is slanted so strongly in one direction politically that they've whipped themselves into a sort of mass hysteria. It also has given the impression that San Franciscans operate from an emotional, not a cerebral, place and that San Francisco, when put to the test, turned out not to be the welcoming and accepting place for lifestyles and ideas that the rest of the country had perceived. No doubt San Francisco's image and credibility have been tarnished and I for one one sadly feel too uneasy to return. But perhaps in the future, San Franciscans will show more tolerance for those who hold a minority viewpoint, if not because it is the right thing to do, than because it better serves the causes that many San Franciscans believe in. Otherwise, San Francisco risks becoming akin to Hollywood, who with it's namecalling, militancy, anger and high emotion, discovered that their public support for Kerry was a liability for him instead of an asset.