Sadly mine would say "Runescape," but this has so been me lately. *shakes head*
Who IS this guy?!
Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017, and has returned for 2021! Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, February 19, 2012
A Sad State of Affairs
I haven't written much lately. I don't know why. In the past it's been for a lack of interest (on my part) or inspiration, but that definitely hasn't been the case lately. With Republican's running head-long off a cliff in ways that continue to amaze and astound me, even after all these years, there has been no shortage of material to write about. And I've been fairly active on Media Matters, intending to do some follow-up here, but lately it seems that sometime between my lunch-hour rants on MMFA and my after-dinner fray into the man-cave, it seems other things just keep crowd out those thoughts.
But one of DW's facebook-friends recently sent her a link to a Guardian article that I absolutely MUST share with you all. There have been many of these articles written before - you may recall the piece a from 2008 that likened Conservatism to Mental Illness (here's another form 2004) - and they are usually met with the kind of response that proves one of my favorite personal adages:
Argue with a Liberal and they'll prove you're wrong.
Argue with a Conservative and they'll prove you're Liberal.
I'm curious, though not optimistic, to see if any *ahem* Conservative commenters here might do better than that. We'll see. My favorite part might have been the quotes from Republican Strategist David Frum that "conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics." In the column, that quote links to another great column by Paul Krugman where it is shown in its entirety:
There two kinds of Conservatives: Evil and Stupid.
One lies and the other buys.
It really all comes down to two groups - Liberals and Conservative - that are both convinced they're right. The DIFFERENCE is that Liberals increasingly have the prevailing Scientific and Economic viewpoint, not to mention the evidence supporting those, on their side whilst Conservatives have increasingly chosen to propagandize for the demonstrably false knowing (as the article points out) that half the population won't knwo any better anyway. And whether it's Global Warming, Evolution, the Keynesian Economic Model or the Constituton, the Right has grown increasingly separated from reality, and more defiant every day as they say and defend that which is not only self-evident but, of infinitely more importance, is supported by empirical evidence as well.
Between Sean Hannity claiming that "you can't make the case that the economy is improving," (unless of course you look at, oh I don't know... the rising GDP, the falling unemployment rate, the rising DOW, S&P and Nasdaq, the number of new job's being created each month... you know, literaly EVERY SINGLE ECONOMIC INDICIATOR) or Fox arguing that Government Spending hurts the economy (WTF?!) and Sarah Palin insisting that the unemployment numbers must not be acurate (Because, you know, the Right couldn't possibly be WRONG about... well, EVERYTHING, could they?!) the Conservative noise machine has grown increasing desperate with each passing day in their attemtps to get more and more people to ignore what it right in front of them, and to ignore the inevitable social progress that society makes, putting them in th perpetual state of losing the argument, generation after generation. Adage number three:
Scientists aren't right because they agree with Liberals.
Liberals are right because they agree with Scientists.
Of course, the Right has never been shy about slandering pretty much ANY outfit that (1) Does good and (2) Leans Democratic or Liberal, but I wanted to re-post my repsonse here to CNN's (CNN'S!) Dana Loesch's claim that "It's a 'lie' to claim that Planned Parenthood provides mammograms," because I think it would be an apropriate way to close out this post:
It's a lie to claim there's a "liberal media."
It's a lie to deny that global warming is happening or that it is man-made.
It's a lie to say that one chooses to be homosexual or transgendered.
It's a lie to claim that "both sides do it" when it comes to broadcasting false infomration and distorted, out of context quotes.
It's a lie to claim that the economy has gotten worse under Obama.
It's a lie to put the responsibility for the mortgage crisis anywhere except with the deregulation (and greed) of the banks.
It's a lie to claim that keeping condoms out of schools will stop teenagers from having sex.
It's a lie to claim that "Bush kept us safe from terrorists."
It's a lie to claim that Obama is a Muslim, or a non-American Citizen by birth.
It's a lie to claim that anyone who supports wars and the death penalty is "pro-life."
It's a lie to claim that the war on terror is a war of Christianity vs. Islam, instead of a war of Secular Freedom vs. Religious Fundamentalism and Extremism.
It's a lie to claim that "Happy Holidays" represents a Liberal War on Christmas.
It's a lie to claim that Republicans care about the deficit.
It's a lie to claim that Government spending does harm to the economy.
It's a lit to claim that taxes are "too high."
It's a lie to cliam that Obama raised taxes.
And it's a lie to claim that Planned Parenthood is nothing more than an abortion mill.
Here's the thing... It may not have always been the case, but right now, and increasingly over the last 3+ years (and the last 12, and the last 20...) Conservatives have chosen to be wrong on literally EVERYTHING. (Hey: Even the two issues that I'm most strongly Conservative on, I'll happily admit that my position is indefensible and based entirely on emotion rather than reason!) And that being the case... knowing that... I'm forced to ask the question: WHY WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE CONSERVATIVE?!
But then... that's already been answered, hasn't it?
But one of DW's facebook-friends recently sent her a link to a Guardian article that I absolutely MUST share with you all. There have been many of these articles written before - you may recall the piece a from 2008 that likened Conservatism to Mental Illness (here's another form 2004) - and they are usually met with the kind of response that proves one of my favorite personal adages:
Argue with a Liberal and they'll prove you're wrong.
Argue with a Conservative and they'll prove you're Liberal.
I'm curious, though not optimistic, to see if any *ahem* Conservative commenters here might do better than that. We'll see. My favorite part might have been the quotes from Republican Strategist David Frum that "conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics." In the column, that quote links to another great column by Paul Krugman where it is shown in its entirety:
Backed by their own wing of the book-publishing industry and supported by think tanks that increasingly function as public-relations agencies, conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics. Outside this alternative reality, the United States is a country dominated by a strong Christian religiosity. Within it, Christians are a persecuted minority. Outside the system, President Obama—whatever his policy errors—is a figure of imposing intellect and dignity. Within the system, he’s a pitiful nothing, unable to speak without a teleprompter, an affirmative-action phony doomed to inevitable defeat. Outside the system, social scientists worry that the U.S. is hardening into one of the most rigid class societies in the Western world, in which the children of the poor have less chance of escape than in France, Germany, or even England. Inside the system, the U.S. remains (to borrow the words of Senator Marco Rubio) “the only place in the world where it doesn’t matter who your parents were or where you came from.”So... not only is Black White and White Black, but... Black is Black and White is White as well. Which leads to another favorite adage of mine that sums up the Republican Party, the Right Wing, and the Conservative Movement:
There two kinds of Conservatives: Evil and Stupid.
One lies and the other buys.
It really all comes down to two groups - Liberals and Conservative - that are both convinced they're right. The DIFFERENCE is that Liberals increasingly have the prevailing Scientific and Economic viewpoint, not to mention the evidence supporting those, on their side whilst Conservatives have increasingly chosen to propagandize for the demonstrably false knowing (as the article points out) that half the population won't knwo any better anyway. And whether it's Global Warming, Evolution, the Keynesian Economic Model or the Constituton, the Right has grown increasingly separated from reality, and more defiant every day as they say and defend that which is not only self-evident but, of infinitely more importance, is supported by empirical evidence as well.
Between Sean Hannity claiming that "you can't make the case that the economy is improving," (unless of course you look at, oh I don't know... the rising GDP, the falling unemployment rate, the rising DOW, S&P and Nasdaq, the number of new job's being created each month... you know, literaly EVERY SINGLE ECONOMIC INDICIATOR) or Fox arguing that Government Spending hurts the economy (WTF?!) and Sarah Palin insisting that the unemployment numbers must not be acurate (Because, you know, the Right couldn't possibly be WRONG about... well, EVERYTHING, could they?!) the Conservative noise machine has grown increasing desperate with each passing day in their attemtps to get more and more people to ignore what it right in front of them, and to ignore the inevitable social progress that society makes, putting them in th perpetual state of losing the argument, generation after generation. Adage number three:
Scientists aren't right because they agree with Liberals.
Liberals are right because they agree with Scientists.
Of course, the Right has never been shy about slandering pretty much ANY outfit that (1) Does good and (2) Leans Democratic or Liberal, but I wanted to re-post my repsonse here to CNN's (CNN'S!) Dana Loesch's claim that "It's a 'lie' to claim that Planned Parenthood provides mammograms," because I think it would be an apropriate way to close out this post:
It's a lie to claim there's a "liberal media."
It's a lie to deny that global warming is happening or that it is man-made.
It's a lie to say that one chooses to be homosexual or transgendered.
It's a lie to claim that "both sides do it" when it comes to broadcasting false infomration and distorted, out of context quotes.
It's a lie to claim that the economy has gotten worse under Obama.
It's a lie to put the responsibility for the mortgage crisis anywhere except with the deregulation (and greed) of the banks.
It's a lie to claim that keeping condoms out of schools will stop teenagers from having sex.
It's a lie to claim that "Bush kept us safe from terrorists."
It's a lie to claim that Obama is a Muslim, or a non-American Citizen by birth.
It's a lie to claim that anyone who supports wars and the death penalty is "pro-life."
It's a lie to claim that the war on terror is a war of Christianity vs. Islam, instead of a war of Secular Freedom vs. Religious Fundamentalism and Extremism.
It's a lie to claim that "Happy Holidays" represents a Liberal War on Christmas.
It's a lie to claim that Republicans care about the deficit.
It's a lie to claim that Government spending does harm to the economy.
It's a lit to claim that taxes are "too high."
It's a lie to cliam that Obama raised taxes.
And it's a lie to claim that Planned Parenthood is nothing more than an abortion mill.
Here's the thing... It may not have always been the case, but right now, and increasingly over the last 3+ years (and the last 12, and the last 20...) Conservatives have chosen to be wrong on literally EVERYTHING. (Hey: Even the two issues that I'm most strongly Conservative on, I'll happily admit that my position is indefensible and based entirely on emotion rather than reason!) And that being the case... knowing that... I'm forced to ask the question: WHY WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE CONSERVATIVE?!
But then... that's already been answered, hasn't it?
Monday, February 6, 2012
One I missed...
I meant to post this earlier, but another one of my Hall of Famers, Sports-Reference.com, the parent site of Baseball-Reference.com, has taken a stand against SOPA/ PIPA.
Remember folks: Small Governmant. That's what they stand for. That and internet censorship on a level that would make the Red Chinese blush, apparently. (And, yes, every Democrat supporting that monstrosity are equally included in that criticism. SHAME ON ALL OF YOU!)
Remember folks: Small Governmant. That's what they stand for. That and internet censorship on a level that would make the Red Chinese blush, apparently. (And, yes, every Democrat supporting that monstrosity are equally included in that criticism. SHAME ON ALL OF YOU!)
Gold Star Awards, January (!), 2012
I debated just skipping a month and making these FEBRUARY'S Award winners, but at the onset I said I would do these every month, and I know from past experience that it's not a good idea to get into the habit of laziness. And hopefully, this will keep me blogging this month, since I'd hate for the NEXT post to be FEBRUARY'S winners! (Especially if that were in MARCH!)
So here are LAST MONTH'S Si;ver Star Winners. The year is 1971, and the Veterans Committee was VERY BUSY inducting SIX new members:
The Jake Beckley SILVER STAR #41: TV Tropes
Have you ever tried to write fiction? It's harder than it sounds. (I know: I'm trying!) And it is both amusing and informative to learn more about the tropes used by fiction writers accross so many mediums. According to their own home page: "TROPES are devices and conventions that a writer can reasonably rely on as being present in the audience members' minds and expectations. On the whole, tropes are not cliches. The word cliched means "stereotyped and trite." In other words, dull and uninteresting. We are not looking for dull and uninteresting entries. We are here to recognize tropes and play with them, not to make fun of them." And do they EVER! Every movie, every TV Show, Every Comic Book, Every Amine... So many forms of media. If you want to see a tongue in cheek look at the tropes used in ANY work of fiction that has more than TWO FANS in the entire world, check this out.
The Harry Hooper SILVER STAR #42: Flipside
I've been reading this web comic for AGES and I'm still only about halfway though it! It 's been running for YEARS and IMHO is one of the best drawn and best written web-comics out there. Very professional.Amazing work. It a fantasy, Swords-and-sorcerers story, with subtle Manga influences. The two leads, Maytag and Bernadette are two of the most interesting, compelling characters I've come across in a very long time. The authors also manage to work modern issues (such as gender discrimination and homosexuality) into the plot seamlessly, which elevates the work well above the level of a typical hack-and-slash fantasy comic strip. So check it out, you won't be sorry. And be sure to read it from the beginning.
The Joe Kelly SILVER STAR #43: Pandora
I'm sure I don't need to tell you what Pandora is. What I find so amazing is the idea behind the Music Genome Project, how they will break music down to it's basic elements and recommend songs based on fundamental similarities rather that the "Amazon"/"Netflix" model of "people who liked this also liked...:" There is a deeper understand of music at play here, and one that deserves some recognition. Just one observation: Be careful what you give a "thumbs-up" to! "Thumbs-up" just a single funky bit of 1970-'s soul, and you'll be thumbs-downing so much bad 1970's disco, you'll think you're in a pornographic film! Despite these shortcomings (which have more to do with ME that with the system, I'm sure!) I really appreciate this site, and the FREE service they provide. So many of the songs I put on my Music Page were discovered through Pandora. (Steven Lynch, Dave Van Ronk, Carbon Leaf, Great Big Sea, and MANY others.)
The Dave Bancroft SULFUR STAR: World Net Daily
Have you ever smelled Sulfur? Have you even read the World Net Daily? Can you see what they have in common? It was inevitable that I would eventually bestow one of the dubious honors upon this heap of steaming, Right Wing Trash. Some of us like our information to be ACCURATE. For those who prefer it to be CONSERVATIVE, this is the site for you.
The Chick Hafey IPECAC STAR: The Media Research Center
Brent Bozell is to objective journalism what Syrup of Ipecac is to fine dining. This guy is sofa king brain damaged that upon first viewing I would almost be inclined to view the puddle of bile that he calls his life's work as some form brilliant Liberal-created irony. Sadly, no: He's serious. And pathetic. And about as easily debunked as the myth that the Sun revolves around the Earth. How are Conservatives not embarrassed to be associated with these brain-damaged jack-holes?
The Rube Marquard COPPER STAR: Coston's Complaint
Honestly, this Right-Wing Blog is no more or less brainless, nor more or less biased, or more or less factually inaccurate that pretty much any other Right-Wing Blog, he and I just had the mutual misfortune of crossing paths at one point. I'd love to debate him, but he never replied to my comments. (And I can't even find them now.) Anyway, if you're Conservative, I'm sure you'll love it. If you think people opinions should be at least partially based in reality, you'll probably get a headache.
So here are LAST MONTH'S Si;ver Star Winners. The year is 1971, and the Veterans Committee was VERY BUSY inducting SIX new members:
The Jake Beckley SILVER STAR #41: TV Tropes
Have you ever tried to write fiction? It's harder than it sounds. (I know: I'm trying!) And it is both amusing and informative to learn more about the tropes used by fiction writers accross so many mediums. According to their own home page: "TROPES are devices and conventions that a writer can reasonably rely on as being present in the audience members' minds and expectations. On the whole, tropes are not cliches. The word cliched means "stereotyped and trite." In other words, dull and uninteresting. We are not looking for dull and uninteresting entries. We are here to recognize tropes and play with them, not to make fun of them." And do they EVER! Every movie, every TV Show, Every Comic Book, Every Amine... So many forms of media. If you want to see a tongue in cheek look at the tropes used in ANY work of fiction that has more than TWO FANS in the entire world, check this out.
The Harry Hooper SILVER STAR #42: Flipside
I've been reading this web comic for AGES and I'm still only about halfway though it! It 's been running for YEARS and IMHO is one of the best drawn and best written web-comics out there. Very professional.Amazing work. It a fantasy, Swords-and-sorcerers story, with subtle Manga influences. The two leads, Maytag and Bernadette are two of the most interesting, compelling characters I've come across in a very long time. The authors also manage to work modern issues (such as gender discrimination and homosexuality) into the plot seamlessly, which elevates the work well above the level of a typical hack-and-slash fantasy comic strip. So check it out, you won't be sorry. And be sure to read it from the beginning.
The Joe Kelly SILVER STAR #43: Pandora
I'm sure I don't need to tell you what Pandora is. What I find so amazing is the idea behind the Music Genome Project, how they will break music down to it's basic elements and recommend songs based on fundamental similarities rather that the "Amazon"/"Netflix" model of "people who liked this also liked...:" There is a deeper understand of music at play here, and one that deserves some recognition. Just one observation: Be careful what you give a "thumbs-up" to! "Thumbs-up" just a single funky bit of 1970-'s soul, and you'll be thumbs-downing so much bad 1970's disco, you'll think you're in a pornographic film! Despite these shortcomings (which have more to do with ME that with the system, I'm sure!) I really appreciate this site, and the FREE service they provide. So many of the songs I put on my Music Page were discovered through Pandora. (Steven Lynch, Dave Van Ronk, Carbon Leaf, Great Big Sea, and MANY others.)
The Dave Bancroft SULFUR STAR: World Net Daily
Have you ever smelled Sulfur? Have you even read the World Net Daily? Can you see what they have in common? It was inevitable that I would eventually bestow one of the dubious honors upon this heap of steaming, Right Wing Trash. Some of us like our information to be ACCURATE. For those who prefer it to be CONSERVATIVE, this is the site for you.
The Chick Hafey IPECAC STAR: The Media Research Center
Brent Bozell is to objective journalism what Syrup of Ipecac is to fine dining. This guy is sofa king brain damaged that upon first viewing I would almost be inclined to view the puddle of bile that he calls his life's work as some form brilliant Liberal-created irony. Sadly, no: He's serious. And pathetic. And about as easily debunked as the myth that the Sun revolves around the Earth. How are Conservatives not embarrassed to be associated with these brain-damaged jack-holes?
The Rube Marquard COPPER STAR: Coston's Complaint
Honestly, this Right-Wing Blog is no more or less brainless, nor more or less biased, or more or less factually inaccurate that pretty much any other Right-Wing Blog, he and I just had the mutual misfortune of crossing paths at one point. I'd love to debate him, but he never replied to my comments. (And I can't even find them now.) Anyway, if you're Conservative, I'm sure you'll love it. If you think people opinions should be at least partially based in reality, you'll probably get a headache.
The Gingrich Campain
Were you aware that Newt Gingrish has been married three times? Or that he addmited to having n affari with one of these women while married to his first wife and pursuing the impeachment of President Clinton because he lied about an affiar? How about the many times he was investigated by the House Ethicas Committee? Or that he eventually resigned in disgree from the Speaker's position due to these?
WELL, if you're looking for these facts on Gingrich's Wikipedia Page, there's a good chance you are NOT going to find them there. That's because,a ccordign to CNN, Gingrich's Camapign people are buysy scrubbing the Page of any and all FACTUAL REFERENCES to his three marriages, or to his being investiagted by the House Ethics Committee.
Censorship. An AMERICAN Value. Who knew?
What. A. Scumag.
And do you know the most amazing part? To me anyway? This comes from the same school of Political "thought" (and I use that term VERY loosely!) that routinely aregues that MMFA is somehow a "smear site," citing no other evidence than their progrssive agenda. The same peopl who labeled the White House's "figt the smears" website and web-campaign as "Nazi" in Nature.
Wow. So... Battling Right-Wing Propaganda and demonstrably false statements being made by the media is NAZIST. But DICEMINIATING THAT PROPAGANDA and CENSORING FACTUAL STATEMENTS that one finds inceovenient? That's AMERICAN.
IMHO, Gingrich should new have to produce HIS birth cirtificate, in long form. I have a hard time bvelieveing that anyone born in this country could have so little understanding of what it stands for. The Gingrich campaign should be ashamed, as should anyone who has voted form him. If he can even stand by the life the he himself has led, why shoudl ANYONE of ANY POLITICAL PURSUATION be willing to stand by HIM?!
Just another example of what has become part of my core philosophy, and one of the reaosn that I'm willing to accept the "Liberal" or "Progreissve" label with pride, even though I do not follow any prescribed ideology:
A Liberal will tell you how you're wrong.
A Conservative will tell you how you're Liberal.
And you know what?
They'll both be right!
WELL, if you're looking for these facts on Gingrich's Wikipedia Page, there's a good chance you are NOT going to find them there. That's because,a ccordign to CNN, Gingrich's Camapign people are buysy scrubbing the Page of any and all FACTUAL REFERENCES to his three marriages, or to his being investiagted by the House Ethics Committee.
Censorship. An AMERICAN Value. Who knew?
What. A. Scumag.
And do you know the most amazing part? To me anyway? This comes from the same school of Political "thought" (and I use that term VERY loosely!) that routinely aregues that MMFA is somehow a "smear site," citing no other evidence than their progrssive agenda. The same peopl who labeled the White House's "figt the smears" website and web-campaign as "Nazi" in Nature.
Wow. So... Battling Right-Wing Propaganda and demonstrably false statements being made by the media is NAZIST. But DICEMINIATING THAT PROPAGANDA and CENSORING FACTUAL STATEMENTS that one finds inceovenient? That's AMERICAN.
IMHO, Gingrich should new have to produce HIS birth cirtificate, in long form. I have a hard time bvelieveing that anyone born in this country could have so little understanding of what it stands for. The Gingrich campaign should be ashamed, as should anyone who has voted form him. If he can even stand by the life the he himself has led, why shoudl ANYONE of ANY POLITICAL PURSUATION be willing to stand by HIM?!
Just another example of what has become part of my core philosophy, and one of the reaosn that I'm willing to accept the "Liberal" or "Progreissve" label with pride, even though I do not follow any prescribed ideology:
A Liberal will tell you how you're wrong.
A Conservative will tell you how you're Liberal.
And you know what?
They'll both be right!
Monday, January 30, 2012
News About the Chevy Volt
So I'm grabbing lunch today and I happen to pick up a copy of this week's "Tech Center News"- basically an industry rag that you can get for free, usually at Donut Shops or Gas Stations. And I'm reading an article that I would like to share with you all regarding the Cheverolet Volt. Called "Volt Is Not a Political Punching Bag."
First though, a little disclosure: I am an engineer in the Auto Industry. Secondly: I love the Volt, as a Liberal, yes, but as an ENGINEER first and foremost. I am still blown away by what GM has finally managed to do: Design and market a TRULY electric car. And while the price is too high, and the gas-free range not nearly long enough, with time and further development? I predict that THIS is the fundamental power-plant model that will eventually ween us off of gasoline entirely and forever.
A little math, and I'll get back to the article. The current Volt costs around $45,000. And not only GM sell them at a loss, but even their #1 fan (ME!) will admit that in no one's wildest fantasies in this a $45,000 car. So to anyone who wants to argue the BUSINESS CASE of the Volt? Let me save you the time: I concede on all points! For a purely business perspective, and by itself, in a vacuum? The Volt is a loser. But what GM has designed here remains a TECHNICAL marvel. Lemme 'splain:
Fully charged, the current Volt can go ~35 miles without consuming a drop of gas. And personally? If I were going to even CONSIDER spending that kind of money? I need AT LEAST a 50 mile range to get me to and from work every day. But, as you may or may not know, the range of an electric car, at any assumed speed, is a purely linear function of it MASS. Put simply? Cut the weight in half and you DOUBLE the range! So, let's see... How do we get from 35 to 50 miles, gas free...? Well, TAKE OUT THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE for a start! See the Volt, unlike the Prius, just doesn't need it! So take it out! Save that weight! And the weight of the Alternator. And Radiator. And 10+ Gallons of fuel. And any extra Body Sheet Metal that you no longer need. And the engine mounts... You get the idea. Because of how the Volt works, you don't actually NEED any gas at all. The BATTERY drives the wheels, and the engine only acts to keep the battery going once it's depleted. But once the range is adequate for your daily needs? You can pull the engine out and never miss it!
Can't do that with a Prius. Because the Prius' wheels are still driven primarily but the Internal Combustion Engine, which is only ASSISTED by an electric motor. So while more efficient that standard vehicles, you still NEED gas. It's like Doctor Emmet Brown said:
"[While] Mr. Fusion [...] powers the time circuits and the flux capacitor, [...] the internal combustion engine runs on ordinary gasoline; it always has."
And in the Prius? It still does. Not so in the Volt. And that? Is fucking AMAZING.
SO, with my personal biases disclosed and out of the way, I would like to refer you back to a story that NPR (and others) ran awhile back about FIRES in the Chevy Volt. See... I'd like to file this under"Behold:Your Liberal Media!" And at first blush, some may miss the sarcasm in that. After all" General Motors? FIRES? Sounds familiar no? And what could be more Liberal than showing how a HUGE CORPORATION is putting out UNSAFE PRODUCTS and MISINFORMING THE PUBLIC, right?
Yeeeeeah...
Except that this in the VOLT. And apparently the media's oil-industry sponsors are as afraid of it's implication as I am impressed by them. How do I mean?
Well... While NPR was fair - fairer than most - there were some small details that they failed to give proper prominence to in their story. Like the fact that the fires happened anywhere from three days to three WEEKS after the NHTSA Crash Test: 35 mph into a solid, unmoving barrier.
So what? What does that matter? The cars still caught fire, right? What if it were parked in my garage? It could burn my house down, no?!
*sigh*
Well... That's the impression I felt the NPR stories would leave people with. But it's utter hogwash.
The fires occurred due to a COOLANT leak that corroded the terminals and after three days to three weeks caught fire. Where was the car at the time? In the equivalent of A FUCKING GOVERNMENT JUNKYARD! Which is exactly where YOUR CAR would be after a 35+ mph crash! And, OK, suppose your car's not totalled. I can still guarantee you it's IN THE DAMNED SHOP!
I've been on both the receiving and giving end of SEVERAL crashes in my ~22 years of driving. NONE of them were over 35 mph. I know this for a fact because my airbags never deployed, and airbag typically deploy between 15 and 20 mph. So these were LOW SPEED crashes. But anything over ~10? And my car (and usually the other guy's) was definitely IN THE SHOP. It NEEDED repairs. And if your mechanic notices a LEAK? Of literally fucking ANYTHING? That's pretty much the FIRST thing s/he's going to address!
(BTW... "she or he" (s/he) is used here as MY mechanic happens to be female. Odd but true, and she's AWESOME at it!)
See... These kinds of things: fires after a crash? Are a HUGE problem if it's something like GAS that's leaking. Mainly because that can catch fire while you're still in the car! But as GM chairman Dan Ackerson was quoted as saying:
Here are some FACTS about the Volt:
For you flag waving types? It's made in the USA, exclusively in GM's Hammtramack plant...
For you anti-supply-siders? ...by UAW, Union labor.
For you flag waving types? It will break your / our dependence on foreign oil.
For you eco-warriors? It can potentially eliminate your personal transportation carbon footprint.
And for you car enthusiasts? This thing looks COOL:
OK, so it's not the Corvette, or the Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Skye. THOSE? Were some damned fine lookin' cars. (The 'Vette still is, though I'm a Mustang-man through and through myself!) But other than those? GM's not exactly known for it's bold styling. They've been making ugly Cadillacs for decades now, and I'm sure y'all remember the Aztek and wish you didn't, am I right? But hey: I'll put this up against any comparably priced Toyota or Honda in terms of style and performance - not to mention SAFETY. Yes, SAFETY, as it was award a FIVE-STAR CRASH TEST RATING in both Driver and Passenger Frontal Impacts, Side Impacts and Rollover Rating.
Now... At $45,000...?
Nah, still too much. But lose the engine - which this power-plant makes possible - extend the range and reduce the cost? (Starting with the cost of the engine you've got to pull out ayway?) And this thing will one day be regarded as the Car that changed the world...
...or at least the point at which it all started!
...And the oil industry KNOWS IT!
First though, a little disclosure: I am an engineer in the Auto Industry. Secondly: I love the Volt, as a Liberal, yes, but as an ENGINEER first and foremost. I am still blown away by what GM has finally managed to do: Design and market a TRULY electric car. And while the price is too high, and the gas-free range not nearly long enough, with time and further development? I predict that THIS is the fundamental power-plant model that will eventually ween us off of gasoline entirely and forever.
A little math, and I'll get back to the article. The current Volt costs around $45,000. And not only GM sell them at a loss, but even their #1 fan (ME!) will admit that in no one's wildest fantasies in this a $45,000 car. So to anyone who wants to argue the BUSINESS CASE of the Volt? Let me save you the time: I concede on all points! For a purely business perspective, and by itself, in a vacuum? The Volt is a loser. But what GM has designed here remains a TECHNICAL marvel. Lemme 'splain:
Fully charged, the current Volt can go ~35 miles without consuming a drop of gas. And personally? If I were going to even CONSIDER spending that kind of money? I need AT LEAST a 50 mile range to get me to and from work every day. But, as you may or may not know, the range of an electric car, at any assumed speed, is a purely linear function of it MASS. Put simply? Cut the weight in half and you DOUBLE the range! So, let's see... How do we get from 35 to 50 miles, gas free...? Well, TAKE OUT THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE for a start! See the Volt, unlike the Prius, just doesn't need it! So take it out! Save that weight! And the weight of the Alternator. And Radiator. And 10+ Gallons of fuel. And any extra Body Sheet Metal that you no longer need. And the engine mounts... You get the idea. Because of how the Volt works, you don't actually NEED any gas at all. The BATTERY drives the wheels, and the engine only acts to keep the battery going once it's depleted. But once the range is adequate for your daily needs? You can pull the engine out and never miss it!
Can't do that with a Prius. Because the Prius' wheels are still driven primarily but the Internal Combustion Engine, which is only ASSISTED by an electric motor. So while more efficient that standard vehicles, you still NEED gas. It's like Doctor Emmet Brown said:
"[While] Mr. Fusion [...] powers the time circuits and the flux capacitor, [...] the internal combustion engine runs on ordinary gasoline; it always has."
And in the Prius? It still does. Not so in the Volt. And that? Is fucking AMAZING.
SO, with my personal biases disclosed and out of the way, I would like to refer you back to a story that NPR (and others) ran awhile back about FIRES in the Chevy Volt. See... I'd like to file this under"Behold:Your Liberal Media!" And at first blush, some may miss the sarcasm in that. After all" General Motors? FIRES? Sounds familiar no? And what could be more Liberal than showing how a HUGE CORPORATION is putting out UNSAFE PRODUCTS and MISINFORMING THE PUBLIC, right?
Yeeeeeah...
Except that this in the VOLT. And apparently the media's oil-industry sponsors are as afraid of it's implication as I am impressed by them. How do I mean?
Well... While NPR was fair - fairer than most - there were some small details that they failed to give proper prominence to in their story. Like the fact that the fires happened anywhere from three days to three WEEKS after the NHTSA Crash Test: 35 mph into a solid, unmoving barrier.
So what? What does that matter? The cars still caught fire, right? What if it were parked in my garage? It could burn my house down, no?!
*sigh*
Well... That's the impression I felt the NPR stories would leave people with. But it's utter hogwash.
The fires occurred due to a COOLANT leak that corroded the terminals and after three days to three weeks caught fire. Where was the car at the time? In the equivalent of A FUCKING GOVERNMENT JUNKYARD! Which is exactly where YOUR CAR would be after a 35+ mph crash! And, OK, suppose your car's not totalled. I can still guarantee you it's IN THE DAMNED SHOP!
I've been on both the receiving and giving end of SEVERAL crashes in my ~22 years of driving. NONE of them were over 35 mph. I know this for a fact because my airbags never deployed, and airbag typically deploy between 15 and 20 mph. So these were LOW SPEED crashes. But anything over ~10? And my car (and usually the other guy's) was definitely IN THE SHOP. It NEEDED repairs. And if your mechanic notices a LEAK? Of literally fucking ANYTHING? That's pretty much the FIRST thing s/he's going to address!
(BTW... "she or he" (s/he) is used here as MY mechanic happens to be female. Odd but true, and she's AWESOME at it!)
See... These kinds of things: fires after a crash? Are a HUGE problem if it's something like GAS that's leaking. Mainly because that can catch fire while you're still in the car! But as GM chairman Dan Ackerson was quoted as saying:
And that's it. This? Is NOT A PROBLEM. "Fire" might make for a good story, but it a non-issue here, folks! Do you what GM has to do about this? Precisely NOTHING. (Although they still are reinforcing the battery.) But in all seriousness? As a bit of an industry insider? Alert the mechanics that the coolant could be flammable if allowed to sit on the battery terminal for several days and that's pretty much IT."[...] as one of our customers put it: If they couldn't cut him out of the vehicle in two or three weeks, he had a bigger problem to worry about."
Here are some FACTS about the Volt:
For you flag waving types? It's made in the USA, exclusively in GM's Hammtramack plant...
For you anti-supply-siders? ...by UAW, Union labor.
For you flag waving types? It will break your / our dependence on foreign oil.
For you eco-warriors? It can potentially eliminate your personal transportation carbon footprint.
And for you car enthusiasts? This thing looks COOL:
OK, so it's not the Corvette, or the Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Skye. THOSE? Were some damned fine lookin' cars. (The 'Vette still is, though I'm a Mustang-man through and through myself!) But other than those? GM's not exactly known for it's bold styling. They've been making ugly Cadillacs for decades now, and I'm sure y'all remember the Aztek and wish you didn't, am I right? But hey: I'll put this up against any comparably priced Toyota or Honda in terms of style and performance - not to mention SAFETY. Yes, SAFETY, as it was award a FIVE-STAR CRASH TEST RATING in both Driver and Passenger Frontal Impacts, Side Impacts and Rollover Rating.
Now... At $45,000...?
Nah, still too much. But lose the engine - which this power-plant makes possible - extend the range and reduce the cost? (Starting with the cost of the engine you've got to pull out ayway?) And this thing will one day be regarded as the Car that changed the world...
...or at least the point at which it all started!
...And the oil industry KNOWS IT!
Sunday, January 29, 2012
This is so cool...
No politics this time.
This is just so cool, I had to show it to you.( I'm such a gamer nerd.) I've beaten the original NES Legend of Zelda, The Adventures of Link, Occarina of Time, Majora's Mask and I was 98% done with Twilight Princess when my kid accidentally erased my game. But for someone who has spent no small part of his formative years, and adulthodd playing various chapeters in the Zelda series, this just sofa king rocks
This is just so cool, I had to show it to you.( I'm such a gamer nerd.) I've beaten the original NES Legend of Zelda, The Adventures of Link, Occarina of Time, Majora's Mask and I was 98% done with Twilight Princess when my kid accidentally erased my game. But for someone who has spent no small part of his formative years, and adulthodd playing various chapeters in the Zelda series, this just sofa king rocks
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Wow. Month's just about gone.
And I've posted just TWICE? WTF?
Sorry, guys. I just have no idea where the time went this month! And what a month it's been too! For three straight weeks now we've watched the Republican Party show just how divorced from reality they are as they keep talking about how imperative it is that they defeat that "Radical Socialist" Barack Obama, and yet have tried every trick in the book to make sure they don't nominate the one guy who would have a snowball's chance in hell of actually WINNING, because he's that dreaded word that all true Conservatives have been conditioned to break out in hives at the sound of: A MODERATE.
Don't get me wrong, Mitt Romney won't get MY vote or backing. But come on! Newt Gingrich?! One of the most despise politicians in American history?! Rick Santorum?! That fucking DOUCHEBAG?! Rick Perry...? Who's learned the hard way that the rest of America in not fucking TEXAS?! And after the revolving side show loonies - Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Donald Trump... Who the hell IS John Huntsman anyway?!
*shakes head*
But enough of that... I'd like you to take a listen to the following clip. It was from ~1986 IIRC, and it's both hilarious and depressing in it's relevance. L & G, the late, great George Carlin:
And here's another one. Great clip in it's own right, but the PICTURES the user put over it elevate it to BRILLIANCE:
That's right, Rush. A BIG, BROWN DICK!
Oh, and, uh... If SOPA and PIPA had there way? YouTube could be shut down over these clips. Great country we're living in, huh?
Couple of other things that caught my eye...
A few posts back, William found it appropriate to mock my calls for comprehensive sex education as a way of reducing abortions. well, here's an article that, while fairly stunning, shows, once again, that I'm right and Conservatives generally suck.
And there something else that I'd meant to post before the holidays, but I lost the link. It appears the Occupy movement isn't going away. Well... The Tea Party took over the House and all they managed to accomplish was to derail the economy with an artificial debt crisis and put more people out of work an out of home just as things were finally starting to turn around. Well done, cockmunchers. So I for one, would like to see what influence this new movement can have. Probably not as much - it lacks corporate sponsorship and media backing for one - but at least the article was BEGINNING to clarify the actual political agenda. Because that's really what's lacking here. WHAT DO THE WANT TO ACCOMPLISH?
And there are a few things that I think would make some pretty powerful, populist and scary (to the status quo) talking points. Two that I think REALLY should be at the top?
1) Overturn the decision in Citizens United, via Constitutional Amendment, if needed.
2) Strip Corporation of their "personhood" status.
The whole "no more bailouts" thing... Meh, not so much. That's Tea Party talk, and mostly the area of people who let their anger get in the way of better judgement. Bt ending corporate welfare via tax loopholes? No longer allowing corporation to write legislation? Ending for-profit prisons? Hey: There's some good political grist in this mill. Don't get me wrong, I'm under no illusions that it will WORK. But hey: You show me an OCCUPY Candidate?
And S/He'll have my vote!
Anyway, I realize this isn't all that deep, but I figured I'd drop in and post, so you'd all know I was still alive anyway.
Sorry, guys. I just have no idea where the time went this month! And what a month it's been too! For three straight weeks now we've watched the Republican Party show just how divorced from reality they are as they keep talking about how imperative it is that they defeat that "Radical Socialist" Barack Obama, and yet have tried every trick in the book to make sure they don't nominate the one guy who would have a snowball's chance in hell of actually WINNING, because he's that dreaded word that all true Conservatives have been conditioned to break out in hives at the sound of: A MODERATE.
Don't get me wrong, Mitt Romney won't get MY vote or backing. But come on! Newt Gingrich?! One of the most despise politicians in American history?! Rick Santorum?! That fucking DOUCHEBAG?! Rick Perry...? Who's learned the hard way that the rest of America in not fucking TEXAS?! And after the revolving side show loonies - Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Donald Trump... Who the hell IS John Huntsman anyway?!
*shakes head*
But enough of that... I'd like you to take a listen to the following clip. It was from ~1986 IIRC, and it's both hilarious and depressing in it's relevance. L & G, the late, great George Carlin:
And here's another one. Great clip in it's own right, but the PICTURES the user put over it elevate it to BRILLIANCE:
That's right, Rush. A BIG, BROWN DICK!
Oh, and, uh... If SOPA and PIPA had there way? YouTube could be shut down over these clips. Great country we're living in, huh?
Couple of other things that caught my eye...
A few posts back, William found it appropriate to mock my calls for comprehensive sex education as a way of reducing abortions. well, here's an article that, while fairly stunning, shows, once again, that I'm right and Conservatives generally suck.
And there something else that I'd meant to post before the holidays, but I lost the link. It appears the Occupy movement isn't going away. Well... The Tea Party took over the House and all they managed to accomplish was to derail the economy with an artificial debt crisis and put more people out of work an out of home just as things were finally starting to turn around. Well done, cockmunchers. So I for one, would like to see what influence this new movement can have. Probably not as much - it lacks corporate sponsorship and media backing for one - but at least the article was BEGINNING to clarify the actual political agenda. Because that's really what's lacking here. WHAT DO THE WANT TO ACCOMPLISH?
And there are a few things that I think would make some pretty powerful, populist and scary (to the status quo) talking points. Two that I think REALLY should be at the top?
1) Overturn the decision in Citizens United, via Constitutional Amendment, if needed.
2) Strip Corporation of their "personhood" status.
The whole "no more bailouts" thing... Meh, not so much. That's Tea Party talk, and mostly the area of people who let their anger get in the way of better judgement. Bt ending corporate welfare via tax loopholes? No longer allowing corporation to write legislation? Ending for-profit prisons? Hey: There's some good political grist in this mill. Don't get me wrong, I'm under no illusions that it will WORK. But hey: You show me an OCCUPY Candidate?
And S/He'll have my vote!
Anyway, I realize this isn't all that deep, but I figured I'd drop in and post, so you'd all know I was still alive anyway.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Stop SOPA & PIPA now!
OK. So you're probably not surprised that I am opposed to these two fascist acts of government-enabled, corporatist censorship. After all, I'm a free-speech advocate that once took to defending that scumbag, Fred Phelps' right to spew his bile even at military funerals. But what might surprise you is that it took me until today to actual come around to opposing them!
You see... This was originally going to be a post asking for some advice / information / schooling from all of you as to WHY, exactly I should oppose these acts. Serioulsy. For the longest time, reading what little I could about them (becuase the biggest problem that I saw was that the media was stifling all coverage of them, so there really was no public debate about them!) I could find very little that didn't seem right-minded. I mean... free speech is not about protecting the piracy of copyrighted material. And all the “It will end the internet as we know it!” stuff just sounded like so much alarmism to me. My inital thought was, "Bullshit. Global Warming is more likely to end the WORLD as we know, than any one bill is to end the Internet."
And while it pays lip-service to protecting site like YouTube, who would voluntarily take down copyrighted content, the fact is that this is just another exampel of a BAD LAW, that gets made when OLD MEN (and their corporate bosses) start legislating about things they don't understand.
Part of me wants to laugh - because this law will be largely uneforcable in any meanigful way. The U.S. Gov't has no jurisdiction to stop some site in Mozambique from hosting Pirated Content. And the fact that Google links to them? Hey: I can see that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. I also firmly bvelieve that Intellectual Property must be protected. But this? This is not the way to do it. I think the Wikia folks make the best case:
While the goals of SOPA and PIPA are clear and we support them, the way SOPA and PIPA attempt to accomplish the goals amounts does not work for the internet and companies such as Wikia because:
So to show my solidarty with those who have also chosen to stand up and educate the public about this facsist law (seeing as how the media refuses to) here as some screen captures from various members of my Hall of Fame from earlier today, in protest of SOPA and PIPA:
Google:
RAISE HELL.
Contact your representetive and remind them that when s/he took office they swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and Protect our FREEDOM. And while protecting Intellectual property (and let's face the profits of the corporations who own it) is important, it must never take precedence over our liberty, and our right to free expression. The Wikia Page will help you do this. So take action. It's your interent. Don't let our Government - or ANY government - censor it.
BTW...
Here an AMV that I love which might make you wish you never heard of 'FAIR USE" (something the Robert's court, despite their relatively decent record with overly broad laws, has apparenlty NEVER HEARD OF.) And I don"t know what's more shameful - that I know all the words to the song, or that I've seen about 80% of the Anime used in the Video! Anyway... ENJOY IT, before the Government comes to take me (and YouTube) away!
LOL.
Come on... Would you REALLY want to live in a world where that's a felony?!
You see... This was originally going to be a post asking for some advice / information / schooling from all of you as to WHY, exactly I should oppose these acts. Serioulsy. For the longest time, reading what little I could about them (becuase the biggest problem that I saw was that the media was stifling all coverage of them, so there really was no public debate about them!) I could find very little that didn't seem right-minded. I mean... free speech is not about protecting the piracy of copyrighted material. And all the “It will end the internet as we know it!” stuff just sounded like so much alarmism to me. My inital thought was, "Bullshit. Global Warming is more likely to end the WORLD as we know, than any one bill is to end the Internet."
And while it pays lip-service to protecting site like YouTube, who would voluntarily take down copyrighted content, the fact is that this is just another exampel of a BAD LAW, that gets made when OLD MEN (and their corporate bosses) start legislating about things they don't understand.
Part of me wants to laugh - because this law will be largely uneforcable in any meanigful way. The U.S. Gov't has no jurisdiction to stop some site in Mozambique from hosting Pirated Content. And the fact that Google links to them? Hey: I can see that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. I also firmly bvelieve that Intellectual Property must be protected. But this? This is not the way to do it. I think the Wikia folks make the best case:
While the goals of SOPA and PIPA are clear and we support them, the way SOPA and PIPA attempt to accomplish the goals amounts does not work for the internet and companies such as Wikia because:
- they assign legal liability to site owners for ALL user generated content -- Wikia would have to inspect and filter everything users upload -- all text, images or video for copyright infringement and prevent it from being posted. This would be almost impossible to do and would create a terrible user experience with long delays between content submissions, approval and posting. We would have to do this even though we are not a target of this legislation.
- they completely bypass today's notice/takedown provision of the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) where content owners can demand copyrighted content be taken down and site owners have to comply -- which was a carefully constructed approach that balances the needs of internet companies and the content industry. This will stifle innovation on the internet that has become the 7th largest sector driving the health of the economy.
- they deny site owners the due process of law by enabling DNS blacklisting based on any good faith assertion by an individual copyright owners. A site like Wikia could essentially disappear from the web because of the claim of a single content owner who asserted they saw infringing content on our site without recourse.
- they also compel payment processors to stop doing business with the web site in question. Wikia could have our entire revenue stream stopped because a single good faith assertion of infringement on a single page in Wikia.
- while the laws are aimed at foreign companies in general, they can be equally applied to US companies such as Wikia.
So to show my solidarty with those who have also chosen to stand up and educate the public about this facsist law (seeing as how the media refuses to) here as some screen captures from various members of my Hall of Fame from earlier today, in protest of SOPA and PIPA:
Google:
And, of course, the folks who starte dthe movement to protest this: WIKIPEDIA:
so TAKE ACTION.
LOL.
Come on... Would you REALLY want to live in a world where that's a felony?!
Monday, January 9, 2012
Happy New Year!
*exhale*
Long break. Very long. And it's good to be back.
Before I get into anything substantial, over the holiday I saw four movies and read a book that I'd like to give my opinions on.
The first was Sleuth starring Michale Cain and Jude Law. This was a remake of the 1972 Film starring Sir Laurence Olivier and (ironically) Michael Caine. I've not seen the original, but after seeing the performances or Cain and Law, I'd really like to. I highly re-commend this based mainly on the witty verbal banter that goes on between the two leads as each tries to put the other in his place. It's dry British humor and polite insults at their best. Really great stuff. And it's also interesting as it takes place entirely within a single setting (a single SET, even) and possibly with the smallest cast ever filmed, outside of a stand-up comedy routine. Very interesting and if you (still) have Netflix, if well worth a spot in your queue.
The Second was The Invention of Lying starring Ricky Gervais, Jennifer Garner, Rob Lowe and Jonah Hill. (Side note: DW went to grade school with Jennifer Garner. For real!) An interesting high concept film, that imagines a world in which humans (except for ONE MAN) are incapable of lying, and people's words are always taken at face value. What it lacked in production value and dynamic performances (despite a very talented cast, which also included Louis C.K., Tina Fey, Jefferey Tambor and Christopher Guest) it made up for in what I consider to be a fairly profound philosophical exploration of what we consider knowledge, how dogma forms, and the nature of humanity well beyond the fairly trivial deceits that we use to simply get through the day without killing each other. One thing I found particularly apt and amusing is that before the main character learned how to lie, there was NO RELIGION. And after he "invented" lying, he almost immediately (albeit inadvertently) started Religion and the belief in God and heaven. (And almost immediately the irreverent humans started asking questions and picking it apart. In any case, it was an amusing and had some pretty profound statements about humanity and religion (and it REALLY does a job on MARKETING!) and for that reason believe that it's well worth giving a chance. (Again, one for the Netflix queue.)
Third was The Muppets, starring Jason Segal, Amy Adams and (of course) Kermit the Frog and Company. OK, so I saw with my kids, but I also saw it as a 38 year old kid who to this day still counts Jim Henson amongst his heroes. I haven't seen ALL of the Muppet Movies over the years, but I've seem most and aside from the the original Muppet Movie (and apparently the Muppet Christmas Carol, which I haven't seen but I've been told is one of the best renditions ever done) most have been crap. This one? Well, this one took me back a bit. I'm only slightly ashamed to say that I shed more than a single tear hearingBrian Henson (sorry, it was Steve Whitmore!) singing "Rainbow Connection" through his Father's old avatar. Also going for it was Fox's collective freak-out over the fact that it "secretly" (secretly!) tries to "turn your kids into liberals." (I mean... Jim Henson was a hippie? Who knew?!) But yeah, this one really captured the spirit of what the Muppets had back when Jim was still running the show - arguably the first time Brian Henson (steve Whitmore) has REALLY gotten it right. If you loved them as a kid, you SHOULD see this. There are just a few things I do have to point out... First off? Nowhere near the level of celebrity cameo's as in teh past. You could making a drinking game out of that in the first movie. This movie? I counted maybe... like three. The musical numbers... *gag*. Too many,m and they were almost all sung by humans. Somehow...? It just goes down easier when it the Muppets doing the singing. And finally? It's very... dark. And fairly depression. It doesn't even END well, unless you include the throwaway ending during the credits. It had a really dark and depressing and somber tone throughout so many scenes. It's not a bad thing, necessarily, but it's a far cry for the sunshine and rainbows of the first movie. (Of course this country, and world, is a far cry from the one Jim Henson lived in and made better by his presence, so maybe that's appropriate.)
Finally, we saw The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo with Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara and Christopher Plummer. Holy shit, what a fucking trip! AWESOME movie, MUST SE. In fact, it was so good that I plan to see the original Swedish version. Mara gives a performance the likes of which you will likely never see again, immersing herself in the character on a level that I would not have imagined was possible. She deserves an Oscar, but (as usual) the Academy will likely fuck her over in favor of a more bankable starlet. But seriously: SEE IT. It's brutal, raw, in-your-face and AMAZING. Shoot... I may even go back and read the book!
Speaking of books...
Over the break I read Killing Lincoln, by (of all people) Bill O'Rielly. And while it may seem an incredible oddity for me to endorse ANYTHING by that buffoon, I have to admit: It made for one HELL of a read! Yeah, I was aware of a couple of historic inaccuracies, but overall I found it to be very balanced (even objective!) from a political standpoint and, for the most part, present a very conventional, non-revisionist view of the historical events being depicted. (Hey: It was Bill O'Rielly, not Glenn Beck!) It's reads more like a novel than an historical text, and does an amazing job of really putting you on the ground, in the taverns and saloons, on the battlefields and into the halls of power, where the events of history played out for better and for worse. I'd never thought I'd say it, but...
Bill O'Rielly did a fantastic job with this, and it is well worth giving it a read.
You will come away with a greater appreciation for the Civil War, and for what Lincoln, Grant, Lee, the Soldiers, the Slaves, the North, the South and Lincoln himself were facing during these times of trial.
Now, having read this, it got me to thinking...
Where the hell does all this HATE all this RAW, VISCERAL, unfiltered and unadulterated HATRED of President Obama come from? From the Right, I mean. Seriously. What has this man DONE to justify this level of blood-boiling HATE?
While it's been largely lost to myth, one of the things that most people forget is that Abraham Lincoln was HATED, really hated and reviled by many, MANY people in this country during the Civil War, and immediately after and leading up to his assassination. And really, regardless of how we in our modern and relatively progressive world might look back on the issue of Slavery, if you put yourself in the South at that time, one can see WHY so many felt this way. Beyond the mere economic upheaval that abolition would bring about, these people's very ways of life were being turned upside down: Blacks as equals. Black VOTING. Blacks marrying white women, even! Holy crap: One day, one might even run for president! We can laugh now, but when one considers the Country that Lincoln was endeavouring to Govern (and were it not for his untimely death, rebuild) it is easy to understand where those feelings come from.
Fast forward almost exactly one hundred years to Lyndon Johnson and the Civil Rights Act. Again, arguably the most partisan and divided this country had been since the Civil War and through to today. And again, regardless of how you feel about Jim Crow and segregation, it it not difficult to appreciate how profound that legislation was, and the impact it would have on what so many people considered "normal, moral and decent" for so many years. We may shake our heads now, but in there shoes one can see why Johnson "lost the South for a Generation." (Actually Lyndon, it's been THREE so far, and counting!)
And fine... even when progressives and liberals are on the "winning side" (which is merely to say the RIGHT one, which history has shown us to ALWAYS be on) it's not hard to appreciate where the bitterness comes from when looking at someone like Lincoln, Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson. What I DON'T understand is how these same people (generationally speaking, the Right / Conservatives) can find the same (or even a greater) level of hatred for a guy who HASN'T DONE ANYTHING.
(And not doing anything, in this case, is a reason for LIBERALS to dislike him, rather than Conservatives!)
Example: We're watching TV and the Kennedy Center Honors are up next. And my Mother says to my Father, "Well, we don't need to watch that, unless you want to see Obama jigabooing it up on stage."
OK. Now I KNOW that my parents are Conservative Republicans, but really? "Jigabooing?" Jigaboo isn't even a VERB! It a NOUN. And it's second to "Nigger" as arguably the most racist and hateful noun in the dictionary! Look... You can support whichever candidate you want, but I doubt my mother could even articulate WHY she hates Obama so much. I mean... she's not racist. *cough, cough* And, as I and a thousand other bloggers have already pointed out: OBAMA HASN'T DONE ANYTHING!
He hasn't freed the slaves! He hasn't reversed a hundred years of lynching and segregation!
Shit: He hasn't even brought about low-cost health care!
(Or stopped the previous administration's policies of torture, rendition and murdering American Citizens without trial! Again: A reason for LIBERALS to hate him, but Conservatives are he ones who STARTED that shit! They should LOVE this guy!)
And I've asked this question before: Absent racism, what explanation IS THERE to justify this level of hatred form the Right? What has Obama ACTUALLY DONE that is so offensive to them? Seriously. And they wonder why all we're left is:
1) He's black.
2) He's a Democrat.
3) He's the President.
And that's two out of three things he has in common with Eighteen other presidents, few of which (three or four) were anywhere near as reviled as much as this man. But to be fair... this country ISN'T going to tar itself apart and fall into civil war over Obama's policies. So... I just don;'t get it.
THANK YOU , Bill O'Rielly (of all people) for driving home that perspective.
Long break. Very long. And it's good to be back.
Before I get into anything substantial, over the holiday I saw four movies and read a book that I'd like to give my opinions on.
The first was Sleuth starring Michale Cain and Jude Law. This was a remake of the 1972 Film starring Sir Laurence Olivier and (ironically) Michael Caine. I've not seen the original, but after seeing the performances or Cain and Law, I'd really like to. I highly re-commend this based mainly on the witty verbal banter that goes on between the two leads as each tries to put the other in his place. It's dry British humor and polite insults at their best. Really great stuff. And it's also interesting as it takes place entirely within a single setting (a single SET, even) and possibly with the smallest cast ever filmed, outside of a stand-up comedy routine. Very interesting and if you (still) have Netflix, if well worth a spot in your queue.
The Second was The Invention of Lying starring Ricky Gervais, Jennifer Garner, Rob Lowe and Jonah Hill. (Side note: DW went to grade school with Jennifer Garner. For real!) An interesting high concept film, that imagines a world in which humans (except for ONE MAN) are incapable of lying, and people's words are always taken at face value. What it lacked in production value and dynamic performances (despite a very talented cast, which also included Louis C.K., Tina Fey, Jefferey Tambor and Christopher Guest) it made up for in what I consider to be a fairly profound philosophical exploration of what we consider knowledge, how dogma forms, and the nature of humanity well beyond the fairly trivial deceits that we use to simply get through the day without killing each other. One thing I found particularly apt and amusing is that before the main character learned how to lie, there was NO RELIGION. And after he "invented" lying, he almost immediately (albeit inadvertently) started Religion and the belief in God and heaven. (And almost immediately the irreverent humans started asking questions and picking it apart. In any case, it was an amusing and had some pretty profound statements about humanity and religion (and it REALLY does a job on MARKETING!) and for that reason believe that it's well worth giving a chance. (Again, one for the Netflix queue.)
Third was The Muppets, starring Jason Segal, Amy Adams and (of course) Kermit the Frog and Company. OK, so I saw with my kids, but I also saw it as a 38 year old kid who to this day still counts Jim Henson amongst his heroes. I haven't seen ALL of the Muppet Movies over the years, but I've seem most and aside from the the original Muppet Movie (and apparently the Muppet Christmas Carol, which I haven't seen but I've been told is one of the best renditions ever done) most have been crap. This one? Well, this one took me back a bit. I'm only slightly ashamed to say that I shed more than a single tear hearing
Finally, we saw The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo with Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara and Christopher Plummer. Holy shit, what a fucking trip! AWESOME movie, MUST SE. In fact, it was so good that I plan to see the original Swedish version. Mara gives a performance the likes of which you will likely never see again, immersing herself in the character on a level that I would not have imagined was possible. She deserves an Oscar, but (as usual) the Academy will likely fuck her over in favor of a more bankable starlet. But seriously: SEE IT. It's brutal, raw, in-your-face and AMAZING. Shoot... I may even go back and read the book!
Speaking of books...
Over the break I read Killing Lincoln, by (of all people) Bill O'Rielly. And while it may seem an incredible oddity for me to endorse ANYTHING by that buffoon, I have to admit: It made for one HELL of a read! Yeah, I was aware of a couple of historic inaccuracies, but overall I found it to be very balanced (even objective!) from a political standpoint and, for the most part, present a very conventional, non-revisionist view of the historical events being depicted. (Hey: It was Bill O'Rielly, not Glenn Beck!) It's reads more like a novel than an historical text, and does an amazing job of really putting you on the ground, in the taverns and saloons, on the battlefields and into the halls of power, where the events of history played out for better and for worse. I'd never thought I'd say it, but...
Bill O'Rielly did a fantastic job with this, and it is well worth giving it a read.
You will come away with a greater appreciation for the Civil War, and for what Lincoln, Grant, Lee, the Soldiers, the Slaves, the North, the South and Lincoln himself were facing during these times of trial.
Now, having read this, it got me to thinking...
Where the hell does all this HATE all this RAW, VISCERAL, unfiltered and unadulterated HATRED of President Obama come from? From the Right, I mean. Seriously. What has this man DONE to justify this level of blood-boiling HATE?
While it's been largely lost to myth, one of the things that most people forget is that Abraham Lincoln was HATED, really hated and reviled by many, MANY people in this country during the Civil War, and immediately after and leading up to his assassination. And really, regardless of how we in our modern and relatively progressive world might look back on the issue of Slavery, if you put yourself in the South at that time, one can see WHY so many felt this way. Beyond the mere economic upheaval that abolition would bring about, these people's very ways of life were being turned upside down: Blacks as equals. Black VOTING. Blacks marrying white women, even! Holy crap: One day, one might even run for president! We can laugh now, but when one considers the Country that Lincoln was endeavouring to Govern (and were it not for his untimely death, rebuild) it is easy to understand where those feelings come from.
Fast forward almost exactly one hundred years to Lyndon Johnson and the Civil Rights Act. Again, arguably the most partisan and divided this country had been since the Civil War and through to today. And again, regardless of how you feel about Jim Crow and segregation, it it not difficult to appreciate how profound that legislation was, and the impact it would have on what so many people considered "normal, moral and decent" for so many years. We may shake our heads now, but in there shoes one can see why Johnson "lost the South for a Generation." (Actually Lyndon, it's been THREE so far, and counting!)
And fine... even when progressives and liberals are on the "winning side" (which is merely to say the RIGHT one, which history has shown us to ALWAYS be on) it's not hard to appreciate where the bitterness comes from when looking at someone like Lincoln, Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson. What I DON'T understand is how these same people (generationally speaking, the Right / Conservatives) can find the same (or even a greater) level of hatred for a guy who HASN'T DONE ANYTHING.
(And not doing anything, in this case, is a reason for LIBERALS to dislike him, rather than Conservatives!)
Example: We're watching TV and the Kennedy Center Honors are up next. And my Mother says to my Father, "Well, we don't need to watch that, unless you want to see Obama jigabooing it up on stage."
OK. Now I KNOW that my parents are Conservative Republicans, but really? "Jigabooing?" Jigaboo isn't even a VERB! It a NOUN. And it's second to "Nigger" as arguably the most racist and hateful noun in the dictionary! Look... You can support whichever candidate you want, but I doubt my mother could even articulate WHY she hates Obama so much. I mean... she's not racist. *cough, cough* And, as I and a thousand other bloggers have already pointed out: OBAMA HASN'T DONE ANYTHING!
He hasn't freed the slaves! He hasn't reversed a hundred years of lynching and segregation!
Shit: He hasn't even brought about low-cost health care!
(Or stopped the previous administration's policies of torture, rendition and murdering American Citizens without trial! Again: A reason for LIBERALS to hate him, but Conservatives are he ones who STARTED that shit! They should LOVE this guy!)
And I've asked this question before: Absent racism, what explanation IS THERE to justify this level of hatred form the Right? What has Obama ACTUALLY DONE that is so offensive to them? Seriously. And they wonder why all we're left is:
1) He's black.
2) He's a Democrat.
3) He's the President.
And that's two out of three things he has in common with Eighteen other presidents, few of which (three or four) were anywhere near as reviled as much as this man. But to be fair... this country ISN'T going to tar itself apart and fall into civil war over Obama's policies. So... I just don;'t get it.
THANK YOU , Bill O'Rielly (of all people) for driving home that perspective.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Friday, December 23, 2011
Gold Star Awards, December, 2011
Just so you know, I'm PROBABLY going to be signing off for the year with this post. We'll be travelling from the 25th on and my laptop got a paralyzing virus that will not be able to be removed until after the new Year, when I can take it to the IT Dept back at work. (They're the admins on it, not me.) So until the 5th of January, this is probably it. I hope all have a save and happy holiday season, stay warm (I'll be in Florida myself!) and try not to get into too many argument with any of the Conservatives in your families. ;)
OK were up to 1970 and have one inductee from the BWAA and two from the Veteran's Committee.
The Lou Boudreau GOLD STAR #43: This Can't Be Happening!
This Blog is a fairly recent discovery for me. It's written by Dave Lindorff, John Grant, Linn Washington, Charles Young and Lori Spencer. Four writers that can be broadly characterized as principled progressives who are not afraid to be critical of the Administration or the Democrats. I've not read as much of the work here as I have in other cases, but I have been very impressed by what I read and feel that it is something that you guys would also enjoy and be interested in. So check 'em out!
The Earle Combs SILVER STAR #41: Atomic Laundromat
This webcomic tells a tongue in cheek story of Superheroes from one of the most unique perspectives I can imagine: The point of view of the guy who runs the laundromat where they all get their tights cleaned! It has a lot of fun with the typical tropes and cliches from the Super-Hero genre, but also contains some very down to earth themes such as a son's desire to protect his Super-Powered but aging father and the unrequited love he has for his long-time friend. (A fiery red-headed lawyer that I fell in love with almost from the get-go.) A lot of the strips are stand-alones or short 2-3 piece gags, but their is a general storyline and continuity, so I recommend reading it from the beginning.
The Jesse Haines SILVER STAR #42: Hate by Numbers
Next to MMFA, I've probably referenced Cracked.com more often than any other site here. And this is the personal site of Cracked.com contributor Gladstone. It's funny, topical, political and most importantly of all, unlike Conservative humor, generally well informed. His recent take on Fox's response to the Muppet Movie is priceless. Check it out!
Merry Christmas, and a Happy Chistmahaunakwanzica to you all! Hope to see you all back here in the New Year!
OK were up to 1970 and have one inductee from the BWAA and two from the Veteran's Committee.
The Lou Boudreau GOLD STAR #43: This Can't Be Happening!
This Blog is a fairly recent discovery for me. It's written by Dave Lindorff, John Grant, Linn Washington, Charles Young and Lori Spencer. Four writers that can be broadly characterized as principled progressives who are not afraid to be critical of the Administration or the Democrats. I've not read as much of the work here as I have in other cases, but I have been very impressed by what I read and feel that it is something that you guys would also enjoy and be interested in. So check 'em out!
The Earle Combs SILVER STAR #41: Atomic Laundromat
This webcomic tells a tongue in cheek story of Superheroes from one of the most unique perspectives I can imagine: The point of view of the guy who runs the laundromat where they all get their tights cleaned! It has a lot of fun with the typical tropes and cliches from the Super-Hero genre, but also contains some very down to earth themes such as a son's desire to protect his Super-Powered but aging father and the unrequited love he has for his long-time friend. (A fiery red-headed lawyer that I fell in love with almost from the get-go.) A lot of the strips are stand-alones or short 2-3 piece gags, but their is a general storyline and continuity, so I recommend reading it from the beginning.
The Jesse Haines SILVER STAR #42: Hate by Numbers
Next to MMFA, I've probably referenced Cracked.com more often than any other site here. And this is the personal site of Cracked.com contributor Gladstone. It's funny, topical, political and most importantly of all, unlike Conservative humor, generally well informed. His recent take on Fox's response to the Muppet Movie is priceless. Check it out!
Merry Christmas, and a Happy Chistmahaunakwanzica to you all! Hope to see you all back here in the New Year!
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Meant to post this ealier...
Someone posted this infographic on MMFA lasty week, and I had meant to post it here and forgot about it until now. It comes from [IMHO HoF'er] Newscorpse and it serves as a pretty handy reference should you find yourself in a debate with any C-Students about taxes or economics. Please feel free to download it and pass it on.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Best Lewis Black clip EVER!
Holy fucking cow, did Conchobhar send me something amazing. (Sit through the part about Apple Juice, it is SO worth it! Behold:
And for the record? I supprt 100%, everything he said following the Apple Juice bit, including his commments on Nancy Grace, Chaz Bono and MMFA 2011 Misinformer of the Year on LGBT Issue Docter Keith Ablow!
Great stuff, Lewis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I also wrote a bit about Chaz Bono a few months back. It was posted for about five minutes and I took it down. At the time, after re-reading it, I was afraid that it might come off as either misogynistic or homo- or transphobic. But... I THINK, with all of the other pieces on Gay Rights and Women's equality that I've penned lately, and in the context sharing Black's AMAZING Daily Show clip above, that I can post it now without fear of it being misinterpreted.
(And yes, that last statement obvioulsy excludes William.) ;)
So, here is my quickly deleted post, unedited, from the night of 10/4/11:
Dancing with the Stars (Yeah, I know)
Yeah, you read that right.
I just came from the gym, where I spent one hour on an elliptical, held hostage by the person two machines down from me who watched Dancing With the Stars while she worked out, finished just ten minutes into my workout, but left the TV on when she left. Yeah... That's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it!
ANYWAY about the time I noticed it was on, the Star in next couple up was Chaz Bono. And I'm thinking... Yeah, now there's an interesting story. Maybe I'll watch this. Why not.
Let me say two things, unequivocally:
First: I fully support, 100%, any decisions that Chaz and for that matter any of the transgendered make with regards to how they decide to live their lives. I would gladly watch a million people to make what I, or anyone else, might consider a huge mistake than to ever stand in the way of even a single person's pursuit of happiness. And I will never be able to wrap my head around the philosophy of people who don't think that way.
That being said...?
I'm pretty sure my second point will at least pass (D+) the test of political correctness: Chaz Bono dances like exactly what he is: A very fat, very out of shape, fairly uncoordinateded white man. And it with no irony, or lack of self awareness that I say that I'm not even sure that standing around, walking a little bit and occasionally giving the pixie that's spinning circles around you a push, even qualifies as dancing. It is also with full awareness of exactly why I was at the gym in the first place that I say that a fat man should never, under any circumstances, wear a tuxedo without a cummerbund.
The only one with a more ill-fitting ensemble was Nancy Grace. Now I don't approve of those who go out of there way to attack women on the basis of their appearance. And, hey: She's on the plus side of fifty, and I only hope I look that good when I get there. On the other hand, as she is on the *ahem* plus side, she might have picked something other than a skin-tight dress that showed every single bulge and crevice in high-def. Yeah, that's a cheap shot, but it's NANCY GRACE so... Yeah, like I care. Also, there's just something funny about two people prancing around with their arms in the air when one of them constantly looks like she's smelling armpit.
And yeah, I realize that the cheap shots about Grace are beneath me. (Or should be, anyway.) But it is not about merely being fat, or a woman having the gall to age. After all, Rikki Lake is just as fat at 43, but she at least had the sense to pick a dress with some flowing fabric around it. You know: Something that actually looked good on her?! Oh... and she's was pretty much one of the few "stars" who could actually DANCE.
Now... God willing, I shall never mention Dancing With the Stars, nor Rikki Lake, in this blog EVER AGAIN.
And for the record? I supprt 100%, everything he said following the Apple Juice bit, including his commments on Nancy Grace, Chaz Bono and MMFA 2011 Misinformer of the Year on LGBT Issue Docter Keith Ablow!
Great stuff, Lewis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I also wrote a bit about Chaz Bono a few months back. It was posted for about five minutes and I took it down. At the time, after re-reading it, I was afraid that it might come off as either misogynistic or homo- or transphobic. But... I THINK, with all of the other pieces on Gay Rights and Women's equality that I've penned lately, and in the context sharing Black's AMAZING Daily Show clip above, that I can post it now without fear of it being misinterpreted.
(And yes, that last statement obvioulsy excludes William.) ;)
So, here is my quickly deleted post, unedited, from the night of 10/4/11:
Dancing with the Stars (Yeah, I know)
Yeah, you read that right.
I just came from the gym, where I spent one hour on an elliptical, held hostage by the person two machines down from me who watched Dancing With the Stars while she worked out, finished just ten minutes into my workout, but left the TV on when she left. Yeah... That's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it!
ANYWAY about the time I noticed it was on, the Star in next couple up was Chaz Bono. And I'm thinking... Yeah, now there's an interesting story. Maybe I'll watch this. Why not.
Let me say two things, unequivocally:
First: I fully support, 100%, any decisions that Chaz and for that matter any of the transgendered make with regards to how they decide to live their lives. I would gladly watch a million people to make what I, or anyone else, might consider a huge mistake than to ever stand in the way of even a single person's pursuit of happiness. And I will never be able to wrap my head around the philosophy of people who don't think that way.
That being said...?
I'm pretty sure my second point will at least pass (D+) the test of political correctness: Chaz Bono dances like exactly what he is: A very fat, very out of shape, fairly uncoordinateded white man. And it with no irony, or lack of self awareness that I say that I'm not even sure that standing around, walking a little bit and occasionally giving the pixie that's spinning circles around you a push, even qualifies as dancing. It is also with full awareness of exactly why I was at the gym in the first place that I say that a fat man should never, under any circumstances, wear a tuxedo without a cummerbund.
The only one with a more ill-fitting ensemble was Nancy Grace. Now I don't approve of those who go out of there way to attack women on the basis of their appearance. And, hey: She's on the plus side of fifty, and I only hope I look that good when I get there. On the other hand, as she is on the *ahem* plus side, she might have picked something other than a skin-tight dress that showed every single bulge and crevice in high-def. Yeah, that's a cheap shot, but it's NANCY GRACE so... Yeah, like I care. Also, there's just something funny about two people prancing around with their arms in the air when one of them constantly looks like she's smelling armpit.
And yeah, I realize that the cheap shots about Grace are beneath me. (Or should be, anyway.) But it is not about merely being fat, or a woman having the gall to age. After all, Rikki Lake is just as fat at 43, but she at least had the sense to pick a dress with some flowing fabric around it. You know: Something that actually looked good on her?! Oh... and she's was pretty much one of the few "stars" who could actually DANCE.
Now... God willing, I shall never mention Dancing With the Stars, nor Rikki Lake, in this blog EVER AGAIN.
The Pro-Life Abortion Trap
For those of you who follow the day to day drama that's been playing out in the comments section [and boy has it been busy since William's come to town - 46 comments in one thread, which is more than I've had in any of the 10 previous MONTHS this year!] you might have seen that I laid out a trap for William over in the abortion thread that he walked right into. I'm sure it's not original, but I like to call it the "Pro-Life Trap." And what I intend to teach him (and any other like-minded folks) is that a principled pro-Life LEGAL position either (1) does not exist or (2) is not defensible.
The Pro-Life trap is simple: DO YOU SUPPORT AN EXCEPTION FOR CASES OF RAPE.
And remember - we're talking about the law and our legal opinions, not out moral ones. Like almost every one of my readers that I've heard from, I am morally opposed to Abortion. And yes, that includes cases of Rape. The DIFFERENCE between Conservatives andIntelligent People Liberals on this issue is that we don't labor under the delusion that our opinion ought to be legally jammed down everyone else's throat. Abortion is only an issue of Life vs. Death when discussing it on a MORAL level. On a LEGAL level it is an issue of CHOICE vs. NO CHOICE.
What's more, if Williams (or anyone else) wants to argue with Pro-Choice folks that DO have insane opinions about abortion, he/they should go over to Jezebel or Feministing. Though, if he does, he should be warned: They will eat him alive.
ANYWAY... William chose the easier answer saying in not so few words, "Yes."
What followed was a combination of Conchobhar stealing my thunder and William falling back on that old RightWingtripe trope of claiming to have been taken out of context. Well, whether he is aware of it or not: he wasn't. And Conch had it 100% correct.
See...
Consider the idea that "Human Life is sacred," and thus therefore never be unnaturally terminated. Next, consider LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE TEST they apply to the fetus in an effort to PROVE that it is, in fact, HUMAN LIFE, and thus worth protecting. Well, partially out of laziness and partly out of a desire to not limit the discussion to only those tests that I might come up with off the top of my head, I'm not going to start listing them out. Just PICK A FEW. Whichever ones you want to. Can you think of a SINGLE TEST for "Human Life, thus worth protecting" that a Fetus will pass, if it was conceived consensually, but somehow suddenly and magically fails if it was conceived forcibly?
Well, I can't. DNA, living cells, exothermic, grows, replicates, heals, responds to stimulus, develops into a human (OK I lied: I named a few after all) ALL of these apply to the children of the most loving and happily married parents and to the spawned offspring of the most deprave serial rapists EQUALLY. As one fails, the other fails. And as one passes? So does the other.
So you see, William, while you may THINK that you don't "support abortion as a means of birth control?" On the contrary: YOU DO. You absolutely do. What else do you think is going on here? What... do you think that when a rape victim gets an abortion SOMEONE ELSE delivers the baby? Um... NO. It is, in fact, the very DEFINITION of "birth control" regardless of how you choose to characterize or rationalize it.
In fact, while your position is the already the same as mine MORALLY SPEAKING, (and yes, I say that having read your entire commentary on the matter) the fact is that there is also very little difference in our positions, LEGALLY speaking. You ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT a woman's right to choose under certain circumstances. (Just like me and EVERYONE ELSE HERE!) And the ONLY DIFFERENCE between your position and mine/ours? Is that you choose to draw the line in a slightly different place. That's it. It is absolutely not one iota more profound a "Pro-Life" position than mine. It is just a slickly stricter Pro-Choice position - one in which you merely delineate the acceptable circumstantial criteria a little differently. The fact remains that YOU HAVE DECIDED that it is LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLE to kill a fetus REGARDLESS OF IT'S LIFE AND HUMANITY and all you done is chosen a different set of criterion for it. The only difference between you and me? Is that you think a woman needs to get YOUR PERMISSION and satisfy YOUR CRITERIA BEFORE you'll support her legal rights! (And actually... OMG! So do I! Look at that! The principles of our respective positions are, in fact, ABSOLUTELY THE SAME: We simply draw the line in a different place.) (So either your pro-choice or I'm pro-life. Take your pick.)
So calling yourself "pro-life" if it helps you sleep better at night, but your political and legal position is NOT "pro-life" in any principled way. And there is no need for me to debate you any further on this matter, because anyone and everyone is free to read your comments in the previous abortion post. Unless you have something REALLY FUCKING GOOD to add to the conversation, I'm inclined to let my work, yours and Conchobhar's speak for itself.
Now, of course there's another side of the Pro-Life Trap. It's arguably more principled, and attempting to defend it requires both more courage and more stupidity that Williams likely possesses. It is the position that would, for the sake of not in fact merely being a Pro-Choice-lite position, answer my question, "NO."
No exception for Rape.
And hey, you got to admit: It's principled.
The problem is? It also ABSOLUTELY FUCKING PSYCHOTIC.
It is referred to, very accurately, in Liberal circles as "The Rapist's Bill of Rights." And it truly and undeniably defines the difference between Liberals and Conservatives, once again, as not being so much about LIFE as they are about CHOICE. Not allowing Rape victims access to abortion? Completely denies women the right to decide if, and with whom, they will bear children. It says, on no uncertain terms, that it is completely up to ANY AND ALL MEN which women will bear children, how many and when. It says, on no uncertain terms, that I could go out and RAPE THE SHIT out of every woman I choose to, and while I will be punished fro my action, my progeny - all 257 of them, if I've gotten enough rest - will be protected, and MY GENES shall LIVE ON. And as for those women?
"FUCK 'EM!" says this position, regarding their rights to control what happens to their bodies. Reproductive Rights are no longer a matter of legal protection, but rather one of BRUTE PHYSICAL STRENGTH.
Now... This was not William's position, and I do not, for a moment, suggest that it is. (After all - I've already proven that he's almost as 'Pro-Choice' as I am! *wink*) But themorons in good people of South Dakota DID, in fact pass a law that did exactly this in 2006. Unfortunately for rapists the world over, the law was repealed by the end of that same year. (And for fuck's sake READ THAT before you tell me that 'no one' is in fact trying to pass those kinds of laws!)
--------------------------------
BTW... I refuse to add "or incest" to "Rape" when talking about the exception issue. If the incest in question was not consensual (or statutory) then it can simply be called 'rape' and no further information is necessary. Done. And if it was consensual (*ew!*) then why should it require an exception under a pro-life framework? "Incest" is simply an unnecessary and superfluous addition to "Rape."
The Pro-Life trap is simple: DO YOU SUPPORT AN EXCEPTION FOR CASES OF RAPE.
And remember - we're talking about the law and our legal opinions, not out moral ones. Like almost every one of my readers that I've heard from, I am morally opposed to Abortion. And yes, that includes cases of Rape. The DIFFERENCE between Conservatives and
What's more, if Williams (or anyone else) wants to argue with Pro-Choice folks that DO have insane opinions about abortion, he/they should go over to Jezebel or Feministing. Though, if he does, he should be warned: They will eat him alive.
ANYWAY... William chose the easier answer saying in not so few words, "Yes."
What followed was a combination of Conchobhar stealing my thunder and William falling back on that old RightWing
See...
Consider the idea that "Human Life is sacred," and thus therefore never be unnaturally terminated. Next, consider LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE TEST they apply to the fetus in an effort to PROVE that it is, in fact, HUMAN LIFE, and thus worth protecting. Well, partially out of laziness and partly out of a desire to not limit the discussion to only those tests that I might come up with off the top of my head, I'm not going to start listing them out. Just PICK A FEW. Whichever ones you want to. Can you think of a SINGLE TEST for "Human Life, thus worth protecting" that a Fetus will pass, if it was conceived consensually, but somehow suddenly and magically fails if it was conceived forcibly?
Well, I can't. DNA, living cells, exothermic, grows, replicates, heals, responds to stimulus, develops into a human (OK I lied: I named a few after all) ALL of these apply to the children of the most loving and happily married parents and to the spawned offspring of the most deprave serial rapists EQUALLY. As one fails, the other fails. And as one passes? So does the other.
So you see, William, while you may THINK that you don't "support abortion as a means of birth control?" On the contrary: YOU DO. You absolutely do. What else do you think is going on here? What... do you think that when a rape victim gets an abortion SOMEONE ELSE delivers the baby? Um... NO. It is, in fact, the very DEFINITION of "birth control" regardless of how you choose to characterize or rationalize it.
In fact, while your position is the already the same as mine MORALLY SPEAKING, (and yes, I say that having read your entire commentary on the matter) the fact is that there is also very little difference in our positions, LEGALLY speaking. You ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT a woman's right to choose under certain circumstances. (Just like me and EVERYONE ELSE HERE!) And the ONLY DIFFERENCE between your position and mine/ours? Is that you choose to draw the line in a slightly different place. That's it. It is absolutely not one iota more profound a "Pro-Life" position than mine. It is just a slickly stricter Pro-Choice position - one in which you merely delineate the acceptable circumstantial criteria a little differently. The fact remains that YOU HAVE DECIDED that it is LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLE to kill a fetus REGARDLESS OF IT'S LIFE AND HUMANITY and all you done is chosen a different set of criterion for it. The only difference between you and me? Is that you think a woman needs to get YOUR PERMISSION and satisfy YOUR CRITERIA BEFORE you'll support her legal rights! (And actually... OMG! So do I! Look at that! The principles of our respective positions are, in fact, ABSOLUTELY THE SAME: We simply draw the line in a different place.) (So either your pro-choice or I'm pro-life. Take your pick.)
So calling yourself "pro-life" if it helps you sleep better at night, but your political and legal position is NOT "pro-life" in any principled way. And there is no need for me to debate you any further on this matter, because anyone and everyone is free to read your comments in the previous abortion post. Unless you have something REALLY FUCKING GOOD to add to the conversation, I'm inclined to let my work, yours and Conchobhar's speak for itself.
Now, of course there's another side of the Pro-Life Trap. It's arguably more principled, and attempting to defend it requires both more courage and more stupidity that Williams likely possesses. It is the position that would, for the sake of not in fact merely being a Pro-Choice-lite position, answer my question, "NO."
No exception for Rape.
And hey, you got to admit: It's principled.
The problem is? It also ABSOLUTELY FUCKING PSYCHOTIC.
It is referred to, very accurately, in Liberal circles as "The Rapist's Bill of Rights." And it truly and undeniably defines the difference between Liberals and Conservatives, once again, as not being so much about LIFE as they are about CHOICE. Not allowing Rape victims access to abortion? Completely denies women the right to decide if, and with whom, they will bear children. It says, on no uncertain terms, that it is completely up to ANY AND ALL MEN which women will bear children, how many and when. It says, on no uncertain terms, that I could go out and RAPE THE SHIT out of every woman I choose to, and while I will be punished fro my action, my progeny - all 257 of them, if I've gotten enough rest - will be protected, and MY GENES shall LIVE ON. And as for those women?
"FUCK 'EM!" says this position, regarding their rights to control what happens to their bodies. Reproductive Rights are no longer a matter of legal protection, but rather one of BRUTE PHYSICAL STRENGTH.
Now... This was not William's position, and I do not, for a moment, suggest that it is. (After all - I've already proven that he's almost as 'Pro-Choice' as I am! *wink*) But the
--------------------------------
BTW... I refuse to add "or incest" to "Rape" when talking about the exception issue. If the incest in question was not consensual (or statutory) then it can simply be called 'rape' and no further information is necessary. Done. And if it was consensual (*ew!*) then why should it require an exception under a pro-life framework? "Incest" is simply an unnecessary and superfluous addition to "Rape."
Minsinformers of the Year
This year, Media Matters has seen fit to award MULTIPLE "Misinformer of the Year" awards. As evidenced by my own Hall of Fame (December's Inductee's coming soon) I LOVE this kind of thing, so for those who share my interest and would like to see just how bad the Right Wing Media gets, here are the Media Matters:
2011 Misinformer of the Year: Ruppert Murdoch and News Corporation
2011 Misinformer on LGBT Issues: Dr. Kieth Ablow
2011 Misinformer on Climate Issues: Rush Limbaugh
2011 Misinformer on FOX News: Fox & Friends
While all are well earned and richly deserved, ff particular note are Dr. Ablow's views on the transgendered in general, and Chaz Bono in particular, and Limbaugh's absolute gems on the Global Warming. Mu favorite might just be (emphasis added):
WHEN YOU ARGUE WITH A LIBERAL, THEY'LL PROVE THAT YOU'RE WRONG.
WHEN YOU ARGUE WITH A CONSERVATIVE, THEY'LL PROVE THAT YOU'RE LIBERAL.
And? BOTH will in fact be right!
And over the years, I think that MMFA has done a good job of calling the person or entity that went above and beyond the call of duty when it comes to carrying water for the Right Wing Propaganda Machine. Past MIY winners include:
2010: Sarah Palin
2009: Glenn Beck
2008: Sean Hannity
2007: Offensive and Degrading Speech (not just Imus!)
2006: ABC
2005: Chris Matthews
2004: Bill O’Rielly
Interesting reads all. Well done MMFA. I hope that, in future, you will continue this new tradition of award not only an overall award, but awards based on smaller issues as well.
NOTE: In the next couple of days, should more of the issue-based award be named, I will updated this post accordingly.
2011 Misinformer of the Year: Ruppert Murdoch and News Corporation
2011 Misinformer on LGBT Issues: Dr. Kieth Ablow
2011 Misinformer on Climate Issues: Rush Limbaugh
2011 Misinformer on FOX News: Fox & Friends
While all are well earned and richly deserved, ff particular note are Dr. Ablow's views on the transgendered in general, and Chaz Bono in particular, and Limbaugh's absolute gems on the Global Warming. Mu favorite might just be (emphasis added):
LIMBAUGH: How did I know global warming is a hoax? 'Cause of who's behind pushing it. Liberals. They lie.
[...] If there ever is scientific proof -- and see, I don't need scientific proof because to me the people who are promoting manmade global warming are a bunch of frauds. They are liberals, they lie. It's not a generalization. It is an undeniable truth of life.While the absolute absurdity of these statement is both undeniable and self-evident, I am tickled pink to see, once again, further evidence of what I always say:
WHEN YOU ARGUE WITH A LIBERAL, THEY'LL PROVE THAT YOU'RE WRONG.
WHEN YOU ARGUE WITH A CONSERVATIVE, THEY'LL PROVE THAT YOU'RE LIBERAL.
And? BOTH will in fact be right!
And over the years, I think that MMFA has done a good job of calling the person or entity that went above and beyond the call of duty when it comes to carrying water for the Right Wing Propaganda Machine. Past MIY winners include:
2010: Sarah Palin
2009: Glenn Beck
2008: Sean Hannity
2007: Offensive and Degrading Speech (not just Imus!)
2006: ABC
2005: Chris Matthews
2004: Bill O’Rielly
Interesting reads all. Well done MMFA. I hope that, in future, you will continue this new tradition of award not only an overall award, but awards based on smaller issues as well.
NOTE: In the next couple of days, should more of the issue-based award be named, I will updated this post accordingly.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Teh Gay! Teh Gay! Oh, PraY teh gay AWAY!
Note this was earlier in the week, but I've had like NO TIME to proofread (and, yes, I DO!) edit, etc... and get it posted. I also haven't had the chance to get to any of the comments yet. Sorry about that. I DID read Classic's filibuster reply over on LeftHook, and I will respond to it, but it's just been so crazy around here that I haven't had the chance yet. Speaking of which...
I LOVE how lively it's been lately! Everyone's commenting, and debating... And yes, most of the time they're just piling on William, but I've got to admit: It's been a lot more fun and a lot more active lately since he's started commenting! So, William: sincerely and with no sarcasm or irony: THANK YOU for sharing your opinions here. As much as I like preaching to the choir, vigorous and spirited debate (and even the occasionally mean-spirited debate) is what I LIVE for! It's why I do this. So I'm more than happy to have a Conservative who comes in here andlowers the property values speaks his mind. THANK YOU.
(Plus my ad revenue is over $100.00 now, so unless Google finds a way to weasel out of it, I should be getting a check next month. It's like I said: I get paid whether there's any merit in what you post or not. So THANK YOU for that as well!) ;)
Now... ON TO THE TOPIC. I read a piece on MMFA yesterday that really made me angry. In terms of the media, it dealt with how often representatives of the "Family Research Center" have been interviewed and given a chance to spew their anti-gay rhetoric on not only Fox, but CNN and MSNBC as well! Now it's important to note that The Family Research Council has been designated as a Hate Group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. And I'm sure I don't have to tell anyone here (besides William) that whenever a Right Wing Think Talk puts the word "Family" in their names, this is almost always a front for a Funny-Mentalist hate group to force their radical and unconstitutional religious agenda down our throats. In this case, I'm not even sure which word their doing a greater Orwellian disservice to, "family," or "research."
In addition to the mere number of times these inbreeds have appeared on the various cable news networks, it is noteworthy that only TWICE have the networks mentioned that they represent a group that has been branded a hate group by the SPLC! And one of those mentions was on FOX! Imagine that: FOX does a better job than CNN disclosing the Right-wing leanings of their guests! Behold: YOUR LIBERAL MEDIA!
OTOH, considering Fox’s audience, their mention of this probably does more to denigrate the SPLC than to undermine the credibility of the FRC.
SPLC's position on the FRC is summarized as follows:
Gems from Tony Perkins:
Gems from Peter Sprigg:
Gems for Ken Blackwell:
(see what I did there?)
- Unless your suggesting that he somehow desecrated Bin Laden’s body? But then… do you really expect me to believe that you have a fuck to give about what happened to Bin Laden’s body?
So, to recap: The FRC advocates violence against children in and of and minority groups, the deportation of Citizens, the forcing of Religious beliefs upon the populace, and compares said minority groups to barnyard animals. At this point, I would offer that is it neither hyperbole nor a violation of Godwin’s Law that the FRC are bunch of FUCKING NAZI’S.
Now I’m going to say my piece. First of all, let me be clear: I do not research these things. Which is precisely which I defer to the people who do! I can, however, say that, unlike the jack-booted fascists over at the FRC, the conclusions of the research being done are not in contrast to my own observations in day-to-day life, going back as far back as childhood. Take for example the issue of CHOICE.
William tried to make a point about this in one of his recent comments. Something about how he might choose to walk fast, but that shouldn’t give him civil rights as a ‘fast walker.’ Well… I had a friend in college who was six-foot-seven. REALLY tall fucker. LOVED having him on my Basketball team, HATED trying to play against him. (Trying to shoot against a guy who’s 6’7” is like standing in the shade under a fucking tree!) And you know what? Fucker was BORN a fast-walker. And really? And anyone who would complain about the fact that this dude’s gate was about double that of a “normal” man’s stride? IS pretty much just being a dick. Now… Maybe some people are just born dicks, and maybe some people CHOOSE to be dicks. And you know what? It is ABSOLUTELY your civil right to be as BIG A DICK as you’d like too be, either way! Just like... du-da-dahhhh... it IS, in fact, your CIVIL RIGHT to walk fast (especially if your legs go up to my shoulders.) Come on Will, really? Have you ever seen a law passed that says you can’t walk above a certain speed? Or marry someone who does?
Your example is either completely irrelevant or precisely proves my point. I’m not sure which, but try not to throw it right down the middle next time, OK?
Now… returning once again to the real world: Choice. Or… Does one choose to be homosexual? See… there’s a semantic argument, a trap really, at play here. Because the answer is, “It depends.” It depends entirely on what you mean when you say “be homosexual.” Do you me someone who PURSUES and/or HAS a sexual relationship with a member of the same gender? Well, yeah: That’s a choice. But that’s a BEHAVIOR, not an ORIENTATION. To me (and every thinking person who has the slightest clue and more than two brain cells to bounce together) homosexuality is not a behavior, it’s an orientation… a PREFERENCE, if you will . And you don’t get to choose what you prefer.
(Pay attention now, while I show you how analogies are done…)
I didn’t choose to hate bananas. But I hate them with a burning passion and so I choose not to eat them. And honestly? I wish I liked them! I really do. I wish that I could tolerate the taste, smell and texture of this highly nutritious food – one of the best sources of potassium on the market – and I'm sure I would be in much better health if I could. But I can’t. I didn’t CHOSE this. I just hate bananas. And life is too short already to spend it choking down anything I hate that much. So I don’t. See how that works? I also didn’t choose to prefer Red-Heads. But I do: Carrot-topped, Auburn Haired, Ginger, Freckle-Faced,fire-crotches… (dude, really?) I love them all, I can't help it! And as any Red-Head, and any lover of Red-Heads, can tell you: This preference comes with many a life-threatening hazard. I’m not going into details, because if you don’t already know you wouldn’t believe me, but it suffices to say that my life would be a hell of a lot easier, not to mention LONGER, were it not for this dratted preference of mine. Sure… I could have CHOSEN not to have married one… but I had no choice about having such a strong attraction to them.
The CHOICE is not between homo- and hetero-. It is between self-acceptance and self-denial. Fulfillment in your relationships or indifference. Satisfaction in life or dismay. Gratification or needless sacrifice. Happiness or emptiness. It is a choice between following your own instincts and leading the life you want to lead, or wasting the only life you’ll have living to satisfy everyone else around you, none of whom can even claim to give a shit about your happiness or well-being.
Some fucking choice.
Now, I realize that anecdotal evidence does not trump actual research (just don’t tell the FRC!) but I still think it is worth pointing out that my own life’s experiences pretty much jive with what the research has concluded: That people are BORN homosexual. Whenever I’ve discussed the topic, or overheard it being discuss, with friends or co-workers their answer has always been the same. “How long have you known?” “Always.” (Usually with a dismissive hand waving and/or shoulder shrugging.) And even before being fully aware of their sexual orientation, they were aware that something about them was different. And oftentimes, so did everyone around them. A few years back a co-worker of mine came out of the closet. I hadn’t known him that long, or that well, prior to this but upon hearing the news, my reaction was, “I hadn’t realized he was actually IN the closet!” Another coworker has lamented the fate of his family name as he is gay and regarding his only male cousin… “I can already tell.”
Finally I am reminded of this one boy who lived on my block growing up back in Connecticut. He never really fit in with us. We didn’t bully him or anything – at least I didn’t, nor did any of my close circle of friends that I am aware of – but we never hung out either. Sure, I invited him to a couple of my birthday parties, only because he would have been the only kid at the bus-stop or in the Cub-Scout Pack who wasn’t invited otherwise, but neither me nor any of my friends (or the other kids on the block) ever really befriended him. He was just… different. While the rest of us were playing baseball, or soccer, (or Dungeons and Dragons – hey: it was 1982!) he was usually hanging out with the girls in the neighborhood, playing house or tag or some such thing. (And his was in grade-school, mind you, so not a time in which hanging out with girls meant you were some kind of stud.) Well, I moved away and lost touch with him. But years later, in college, I found out that he had also moved away, and ended up graduating from the same high school that my college friends all attended; in the same town that my parents now lived. And upon hearing that I knew him as a child, they pointed out that he was gay, and asked me if I knew that from way back when.
Well… I didn’t. And while I hadn’t given him a though in ten years one way of the other at that point, thinking about it? I was like… “Yeah, pretty much.” I explained that, as children, we didn’t precisely know that he was homosexual. I mean… we were eight. It’s not like WE were into girls or our own sexuality yet either! But knowing this NOW explained a lot of what we observed as kids. It didn’t change anything - not ever having been a bully myself, or ever having harassed him, etc… it wasn’t like this revelation filled me with any regrets. We weren’t friends simply because we had nothing in common. But it did certainly go a long way towards filling in some of the blanks.
Anyway, enough of that. I’ll believe you’re not born gay as soon as an actual GAY PERSON comes forward and tells me so, giving me some time to press him or her to make sure that we’re agreed on the semantics of the question. Until then? Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. I say so, every homosexual I’ve ever encountered says so, and the research done by people who are far more qualified to make that statement than I am says so.
Period.
The next point in debate that I want to address is that of marriage. In the same recent comment William summed up what I’m sure the right considers to be a reasonable position, saying that he “[PP] supports civil unions but has a problem with it being called marriage.” Now I have to make a confession and a partial concession here. Personally? I think that getting hung up on what it’s CALLED is just utterly stupid. Yes, I think it’s stupid for the Williams’es of the world, but I also – for the longest time – would get furious with the GAYS for pressing this point! For the longest time, my feelings were that if they’re being given everything they’re asking for – or shoot, even 99% or even HALF of what they’re asking for – and they would get this if they just accept that it be CALLED something different? Holy fucking shit, just take whatever you can get, you stupid fuck-wads! It’s not like all progress is going to end with any ONE THING! Take what you can get and MOVE ON – to getting more and more and more every passing year and worry about stupid shit like the fucking NAME after all of the PRACTICAL and LEGAL matters are settled!
I felt that way for a really long time, and I’ll have to admit that some small part of me still might. But the other 99.9% of me? No longer does.
I’m not going to make some irrelevant speech about the dangers of “separate but equal.” No one is going to make those with civil unions use a different water fountain or sit at the back of the bus. And the attack dogs and firehouses (or in the modern context: hate crimes) won’t distinguish between the married homosexuals and single ones. Because we’re talking about marriage in the sole context of it being a LEGAL CONTRACT, that carries with it certain RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES and OBLIGATIONS, it would be an almost trivial exercise to create a TRUE “separate but equal” status here. Because let’s face it: The LAST TIME we heard “separate but equal,” it simply wasn’t equal. But it could be in this case. All it would take is a Federal Law stating that any mention of marriage in any Law at the Federal, State or Local Level shall be assumed to read “marriage or civil union,” and that this assumption shall be binding and applied retroactively. One simple, clear statement would settle the “separate but equals” concerns for all time.
There are just a few problems with that...
First of all: NO ONE IS OFFERING THAT! Show me where this is being offered, and I might be inclined to go back to saying, “TAKE IT, NIMRODS!” But there’s also a…
Second Problem: Laws get changed ALL THE TIME. If there was merely ONE LAW that guaranteed this equality? It would only take a change to ONE LAW to take some of it away. Only ONE LAW would have to be repealed to take ALL of it away! Call it marriage? And you’d have to change THOUSANDS OF LAWS if you wanted to take away their rights. And that’s really why it must be called “marriage.” Because that’s what our LAWS call it.
And the more I think about it: Other than a desire to eventually make these two things increasing NOT EQUAL over time, why other reason (beyond placating the bigots) could there possibly be to have two separate names for these things?!
Also… I’ve gotten the argument many times that this should be a STATE issue. That each state should be able to decide how they want to handle it. This is bullshit a complete non-starter. Because while any state may have anywhere form a few dozen to a few hundred laws regarding marriage – including the protection of property rights, work benefits, co-insurance, etc…? The federal laws involving marriage and the rights and privileges of married people number in the TENS OF THOUSANDS. It absolutely MUST be something that is dealt with at the federal level, because it is the federal government that provides the lion’s share of the legal protections, rights, benefits and obligations regarding marriage. Arguing otherwise reveals only one’s own ignorance and arouses suspicions in others of one’s own prejudices.
And really… regarding marriage, or *sigh* the INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE. Really… these arguments from TRADITION are just plain stupid. In my lifetime there were still states where it was illegal for Blacks and Whites to marry. That changed. There remain countries today where interfaith marriages are illegal. And if you go back to biblical times – and up through to about a century or so ago – marriage was little more than a property transfer, as poor families married off their daughters as best they could, and royalty used it as a tool for diplomacy. That’s changed. The institution of marriage is CONSTANTLY changing. And even if you ignore the numerous changes in the way various societies have viewed marriage over the years, you remain faced with countless assaults on the Institution of Marriage far greater than the idea of two men or two women happily sharing a life with one another. In fact, given the divorce rate, the increasing rate of domestic violence, the rampant adultery, the 72-hour celebrity marriages, the bachelor / bachelorette Reality Shows, etc…? I’d say that they thought of ANY two people settling down and loving each other and building a life together would do the institution of marriage rather a damned bit of GOOD, regardless of their gender.
And finally, before closing on the LEGAL issues, I have a challenge for anyone who’s not with me yet.
First of all, let’s realize that as far as our Government in concerned marriage is in fact no more than a LEGAL CONTRACT. Any talk of spiritual bonding, or any other romantic ideal, is completely immaterial to our government. That is the purview (at best) of the individual CHURCHES. And, in case you haven’t heard, we DO live in a SECULAR NATION and DO, in fact, have and recognize the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. And this is one of those perfect cases that protects the CHURCH’S interests as much as the homosexual’s: Just as the Church (and their legions of brainwashed masses) do not have the authority to tell the government who they can and can’t marry, nor does the Government have any authority to tell any church that they marry, or indeed even recognize the marriage of, ANYONE they don’t wish to. (And the day the gays start ASKING for that, mark my words, I’ll be the first one to be arguing “separation of church and state” AGAINST them!) So you can put aside any mention of Jesus, God, Allah, Muhammad, Vishnu, Zeus, Odin or Ra, not to mention the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, the Iliad or the Odyssey. It doesn’t matter, and the First Amendment of our Constitution says as much in plain, simple English, so don’t waste your time or mine with any of that nonsense. Marriage, in any discussion involving the LAW, is no more than a legal contract.
So here’s the challenge: Give me an example of any other LEGAL CONTRACT that I can enter into with another person or persons where our genders become an issue. There isn’t any. Oh, there used to be. There used to be many examples, seeing as how at one point women weren’t allowed to own land, conduct business, vote, refuse the advances of their husbands, etc… But that’s all been done away with now. There exists now no other legal contract that requires a certain gender to be legally binding. And there’s simply no reason based in logic or legality to maintain gender discrimination in this case. And the “Why?” question that will inevitably rise from that statement leads into my final point:
IT DOES NO HARM.
It does no harm, and it brings great happiness to those people affected by these laws.
Who is harmed?
The parents? Puh-Lease. How long has it been, and in which backwards cultures do parents have any legal say in who you marry? My parents HATED my wife. Fuck ‘em. I loved her, and I remain married to her, and they just had to deal. Parents want grandkids? Hey: It’s only the action of ignorant bigots that prevents gay couples from marrying and adopting, so who’s REALLY doing all the harm there? Natural Grandkids you say? Well, first of all, my cousin, my sister and I are ALL adopted. So FUCK YOU. Secondly, does a naturally infertile couple victimize their parents or society? What’s that? They didn’t CHOOSE to be infertile? Well shoot… The other couple didn’t choose to be gay! What if I don’t marry at all? Isn't that my right? Am I harming my parents then? What if I become a Priest? Sure, not likely, but it’s still my choice, and not one my parents would prefer that I make. I still wouldn't be harming them! And BTW… I have two sons who are AUTISTIC. So if anyone thinks that I would have the slightest iota of sympathy for someone who’s crying over their child being gay or transgendered, my feeling on their "plight" can best summed up as: GROW THE FUCK UP, YOU WHINY LITTLE BITCHES! YOU THINK YOU’VE GOT PROBLEMS? YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT A PROBLEM IS! GROW UP, GET SOME FUCKING THERAPY, AND LOVE AND SUPPORT YOUR CHILD, YOU HEARTLESS FUCKS!
Parents always say that they “just want their children to be happy.” Well… time to man up and put your money where your mouth is regarding that otherwise principled ideal. Those who fail this simple test?
Head? Meet brick.
I once had one inbred jackass tells me that it spreads disease. One even told me that it CAUSES it. Ok… I PROBABLY don’t need to spell this out for MOST of my readers, but here’s a simple epidemiology lesson for the C-students out there. SEX spreads diseases. This is true with Heterosexuals, and this is true with Homosexuals. If two people who have no diseases have sex with each other, a MILLION TIMES, UNPROTECTED, guess what? They will NEVER get a sexually transmitted disease. (And, uh… tongue-in-cheek here, but homosexuality is also absent the risk of unwanted pregnancy.) (Just sayin’.) On the other hand… if one person is having unprotected sex with a person who HAS A SEXUALLY TRAMISSIBLE DISEASE… well, it’s really only a matter of time until they contract it. And again… This is true of heterosexuals and homosexuals. And the RATE of transmission is immaterial. That one practice may be slightly more risky than another is completely irrelevant because in each case it is a matter of inevitability.
Chance of my contracting a disease having sex with another man who has no diseases?
ZERO
Chance of my contracting a disease having sex with woman who does has a diseases?
>ZERO
Or…
=f(how many times we have sex)
So again… this is just stupid.
And in closing, because I can already hear someone *cough*probably William *cough* accusing me of trying to “impose my values onto another person” or some such nonsense…
SHUT THE FUCK UP, NO I’M NOT.
Allowing someone to have a choice, and to make that choice without taking away any of the rights, freedoms and protections that the rest of society takes for granted is NOT how you “impose your values” on someone. I am not taking anything away from anyone, and nor does Gay Marriage. As usual, I am arguing for, and defending, freedom. And freedom is not something you can IMPOSE upon someone. Even if I “force” you to live free… What you do next, remains, by definition, your choice. That’s what freedom MEANS. I may not LIKE your choice, but as I leave it your choice to make, regarding your own life and taking nothing from anyone else? Well, I remain solidly on the side of freedom.
The only people who are “imposing their values on someone else” are the religious funny-mentalists that make up the opposition to Homosexual equality. Those people who would say, “NO, you MAY NOT do this thing!” Apply that test to ANY ISSUE, and you’ll see who’s on the side of freedom – those who would protect your choices – and those who are against it – those who would take those choices away.
God bless America and our freedom and the people that he decided to make gay and transgendered.
(And a big ‘FUUUUUCK YOOOOOOU!’ to anyone who’s not with me on that!)
I LOVE how lively it's been lately! Everyone's commenting, and debating... And yes, most of the time they're just piling on William, but I've got to admit: It's been a lot more fun and a lot more active lately since he's started commenting! So, William: sincerely and with no sarcasm or irony: THANK YOU for sharing your opinions here. As much as I like preaching to the choir, vigorous and spirited debate (and even the occasionally mean-spirited debate) is what I LIVE for! It's why I do this. So I'm more than happy to have a Conservative who comes in here and
(Plus my ad revenue is over $100.00 now, so unless Google finds a way to weasel out of it, I should be getting a check next month. It's like I said: I get paid whether there's any merit in what you post or not. So THANK YOU for that as well!) ;)
Now... ON TO THE TOPIC. I read a piece on MMFA yesterday that really made me angry. In terms of the media, it dealt with how often representatives of the "Family Research Center" have been interviewed and given a chance to spew their anti-gay rhetoric on not only Fox, but CNN and MSNBC as well! Now it's important to note that The Family Research Council has been designated as a Hate Group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. And I'm sure I don't have to tell anyone here (besides William) that whenever a Right Wing Think Talk puts the word "Family" in their names, this is almost always a front for a Funny-Mentalist hate group to force their radical and unconstitutional religious agenda down our throats. In this case, I'm not even sure which word their doing a greater Orwellian disservice to, "family," or "research."
In addition to the mere number of times these inbreeds have appeared on the various cable news networks, it is noteworthy that only TWICE have the networks mentioned that they represent a group that has been branded a hate group by the SPLC! And one of those mentions was on FOX! Imagine that: FOX does a better job than CNN disclosing the Right-wing leanings of their guests! Behold: YOUR LIBERAL MEDIA!
OTOH, considering Fox’s audience, their mention of this probably does more to denigrate the SPLC than to undermine the credibility of the FRC.
SPLC's position on the FRC is summarized as follows:
The FRC often makes false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science. The intention is to denigrate LGBT people in its battles against same-sex marriage, hate crimes laws and anti-bullying programs.And while I have no disagreement with that assessment – and I don’t see how any objective person COULD – MMFA goes on to to include some brilliant statement made by the three most prominent (media-wise) members of the FLC, Tony Perkins, Peter Sprigg and Ken Blackwell. It was their personal comments that really pissed me off, especially considering that those "great bastions of Liberalism," CNN and MSNBC were turning to these hate-mongers for political commentary! So what follows will, in it totality, amount to what I think of as one of my better rants. Like all good rants, there's obscenity (so don’t be pussy), but I do still hope to make at least a few of you laugh (those that are capable) and a few of you think (again, those that are capable.) And if do I end up merely preaching the choir? Meh. I still found it personally rewarding to write it.
The FRC also strongly promotes the “ex-gay” movement as a way to combat LGBT civil rights measures, though professional organizations have repeatedly called so-called “reparative therapy” (which seeks to turn gays and lesbians into heterosexuals) into question and issued statements that don’t support it. [...]
Part of the FRC’s recent strategy is to pound home the false claim that gays and lesbians are more likely to sexually abuse children. This is false. The American Psychological Association, among others, has concluded that “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.
Gems from Tony Perkins:
“It Gets Better” Project Tries To “Recruit” Kids Into A “Lifestyle” Of “Perversion.”- Yes! Long live discrimination, the fear of violence and the love of Jesus!
“Research Is Overwhelming” That Gay Men Are More Likely To Molest Children.- Sure… Except that in fact the exact OPPOSITE is true.
Gay Teens Commit Suicide Because They Know Being Gay Is “Abnormal.”- …And I’m sure that constantly having genetic defectives like you constantly hammering them with that opinion has nothing at all to do with it.
Anti-Bullying Programs Promote “Indoctrination Into Homosexuality.”- Note: Violence against children is OK, as long as the kid is a little faggot. Gotcha.
Gay Activists Are Intolerant, Hateful, Spiteful Pawns Of The Devil.- Question: (1) Intolerant of WHO, exactly? (2) Hateful, Spiteful… in what way, exactly? (3) How exactly would what the Devil… well, I suppose you WOULD know, never mind!
Senators Who Vote For DADT Repeal Will Have “The Blood Of Innocent Soldiers On Their Hands.”- Wait... Which soldiers? Mybe the GAY ONES who would face violence and possibly death at the hands of those bigots in our military who happen to think as you do. But in that case the blood is on their hands and yours. The blod of victims will alwyas, only, be on the hand of those who perpetrate it and enable it.
"Kids Do Worse In These Same-Sex Households. They’re More Susceptible To Violence.”- Well, yeah, I suppose they are ‘more susceptible to violence,’ seeing as how you lot are so keen to perpetrate violence upon them!
"Gays Are Trying To “Spread Fear And Intimidation So That They Can Disrupt And Destabilize"- LMFAO. I’ve had friends and co-workers who've been gay. Great folks, all. And, save for one, pretty much the least intimidating people I’ve even met. Seriously? You’re ‘intimidated’ by gays? Seriously? How can someone believe every stereotype about gays and still find them the LEAST BIT intimidating? That’s hilarious! OTOH… Who was it that was perpetrating bigotry and rationalizing violence again? Oh yeah… IT WAS YOU ASSHOLES!!! So… WHO is it that’s trying to intimidate people again? Oh yeah: IT’S YOU ASSHOLES!!! And, uh… what’s so “destabilizing” about two people settling down and building a life together? If that’s destabilizing, I have to ask: WHY DO YOU HATE MARRIAGE?!
Gems from Peter Sprigg:
Anti-Bullying Programs Indoctrinate “Impressionable School Children.”- TO REITERATE: Violence against children is OK, as long as there a bunch of little faggots.
Transgender People Should “Stop Pretending To BE The Opposite Of Your Real Sex.”- Um… they’re TRYING TO, douchebag!
Harvey Milk May Have Been A Pedophile, Faked A Hate Crime.- Oh! Oh! Let me try! Peter Sprigg MAY like to suck donkey dicks! Tony Perkins MAY enjoy watching scat porn! Ken Blackwell MAY like to fuck three men at the same time! Boy, isn’t this fun!
It Is Better To “Export Homosexuals From The United States Than To Import Them Into The United States.”- Well, yeah, in general it would be nice to close our trade deficit, but… somehow I don’t think that human trafficking is the way to do it, you Nazi scumbag.
Gems for Ken Blackwell:
“Homosexuality is A Compulsion That Can Be Contained, Repressed, Or Changed.”- I would say the same of bigotry and ignorance and have the benefit of actually being RIGHT. (I’d be inclined to include RELIGION in that as well, but then some might find that offensive.)
“Homosexuality Is A Lifestyle, It’s A Choice, And That Lifestyle Can be Changed.”- Homosexuality is a PREFERENCE. That is NOT something that can be changed. (Let me tell you: My life would have been a LOT easier if I didn’t prefer Red-Heads; but more on that later.) Following the lifestyle maybe be a choice, but it’s a choice between accepting who you are, and living a happy, fulfilled life and one where you live in repression and denial. But hey: I see what path YOU’VE chosen, so more power to you!
Same-Sex Marriage “Defies Barnyard Logic... The Barnyard Knows Better.”- That’s interesting. Because the FACT is that homosexuality has been observed in nature in just about every species of animal on earth. But hey: Don’t let the facts get in the way of your fanciful daydreams about barnyard animals. Also… Why should I (or a donkey) give two shits what a pig or a sheep thinks about my (or the donkey’s) choice of a mate?
(see what I did there?)
President Obama Shows Same Respect For Marriage That He Did For Osama Bin Laden’s Body.- I'm confused. WHAT, exactly, are you saying here? I must be missing something, because Bin Laden’s body was prepared according to his religions sacred rituals and the released at sea to protect his privacy and avoid a spectacle being made and/or it being desecrated. So… You’re saying that President Obama believes that marriage is a sacred and private affair deserving the utmost respect and should not be made into a spectacle? I mean… I’m OK with that and all, but you say it like it’s a BAD THING. Oh, but then you are the people who want to go around telling everybody else who they can and can’t marry, so… I guess that makes sense.
- Unless your suggesting that he somehow desecrated Bin Laden’s body? But then… do you really expect me to believe that you have a fuck to give about what happened to Bin Laden’s body?
So, to recap: The FRC advocates violence against children in and of and minority groups, the deportation of Citizens, the forcing of Religious beliefs upon the populace, and compares said minority groups to barnyard animals. At this point, I would offer that is it neither hyperbole nor a violation of Godwin’s Law that the FRC are bunch of FUCKING NAZI’S.
Now I’m going to say my piece. First of all, let me be clear: I do not research these things. Which is precisely which I defer to the people who do! I can, however, say that, unlike the jack-booted fascists over at the FRC, the conclusions of the research being done are not in contrast to my own observations in day-to-day life, going back as far back as childhood. Take for example the issue of CHOICE.
William tried to make a point about this in one of his recent comments. Something about how he might choose to walk fast, but that shouldn’t give him civil rights as a ‘fast walker.’ Well… I had a friend in college who was six-foot-seven. REALLY tall fucker. LOVED having him on my Basketball team, HATED trying to play against him. (Trying to shoot against a guy who’s 6’7” is like standing in the shade under a fucking tree!) And you know what? Fucker was BORN a fast-walker. And really? And anyone who would complain about the fact that this dude’s gate was about double that of a “normal” man’s stride? IS pretty much just being a dick. Now… Maybe some people are just born dicks, and maybe some people CHOOSE to be dicks. And you know what? It is ABSOLUTELY your civil right to be as BIG A DICK as you’d like too be, either way! Just like... du-da-dahhhh... it IS, in fact, your CIVIL RIGHT to walk fast (especially if your legs go up to my shoulders.) Come on Will, really? Have you ever seen a law passed that says you can’t walk above a certain speed? Or marry someone who does?
Your example is either completely irrelevant or precisely proves my point. I’m not sure which, but try not to throw it right down the middle next time, OK?
Now… returning once again to the real world: Choice. Or… Does one choose to be homosexual? See… there’s a semantic argument, a trap really, at play here. Because the answer is, “It depends.” It depends entirely on what you mean when you say “be homosexual.” Do you me someone who PURSUES and/or HAS a sexual relationship with a member of the same gender? Well, yeah: That’s a choice. But that’s a BEHAVIOR, not an ORIENTATION. To me (and every thinking person who has the slightest clue and more than two brain cells to bounce together) homosexuality is not a behavior, it’s an orientation… a PREFERENCE, if you will . And you don’t get to choose what you prefer.
(Pay attention now, while I show you how analogies are done…)
I didn’t choose to hate bananas. But I hate them with a burning passion and so I choose not to eat them. And honestly? I wish I liked them! I really do. I wish that I could tolerate the taste, smell and texture of this highly nutritious food – one of the best sources of potassium on the market – and I'm sure I would be in much better health if I could. But I can’t. I didn’t CHOSE this. I just hate bananas. And life is too short already to spend it choking down anything I hate that much. So I don’t. See how that works? I also didn’t choose to prefer Red-Heads. But I do: Carrot-topped, Auburn Haired, Ginger, Freckle-Faced,
The CHOICE is not between homo- and hetero-. It is between self-acceptance and self-denial. Fulfillment in your relationships or indifference. Satisfaction in life or dismay. Gratification or needless sacrifice. Happiness or emptiness. It is a choice between following your own instincts and leading the life you want to lead, or wasting the only life you’ll have living to satisfy everyone else around you, none of whom can even claim to give a shit about your happiness or well-being.
Some fucking choice.
Now, I realize that anecdotal evidence does not trump actual research (just don’t tell the FRC!) but I still think it is worth pointing out that my own life’s experiences pretty much jive with what the research has concluded: That people are BORN homosexual. Whenever I’ve discussed the topic, or overheard it being discuss, with friends or co-workers their answer has always been the same. “How long have you known?” “Always.” (Usually with a dismissive hand waving and/or shoulder shrugging.) And even before being fully aware of their sexual orientation, they were aware that something about them was different. And oftentimes, so did everyone around them. A few years back a co-worker of mine came out of the closet. I hadn’t known him that long, or that well, prior to this but upon hearing the news, my reaction was, “I hadn’t realized he was actually IN the closet!” Another coworker has lamented the fate of his family name as he is gay and regarding his only male cousin… “I can already tell.”
Finally I am reminded of this one boy who lived on my block growing up back in Connecticut. He never really fit in with us. We didn’t bully him or anything – at least I didn’t, nor did any of my close circle of friends that I am aware of – but we never hung out either. Sure, I invited him to a couple of my birthday parties, only because he would have been the only kid at the bus-stop or in the Cub-Scout Pack who wasn’t invited otherwise, but neither me nor any of my friends (or the other kids on the block) ever really befriended him. He was just… different. While the rest of us were playing baseball, or soccer, (or Dungeons and Dragons – hey: it was 1982!) he was usually hanging out with the girls in the neighborhood, playing house or tag or some such thing. (And his was in grade-school, mind you, so not a time in which hanging out with girls meant you were some kind of stud.) Well, I moved away and lost touch with him. But years later, in college, I found out that he had also moved away, and ended up graduating from the same high school that my college friends all attended; in the same town that my parents now lived. And upon hearing that I knew him as a child, they pointed out that he was gay, and asked me if I knew that from way back when.
Well… I didn’t. And while I hadn’t given him a though in ten years one way of the other at that point, thinking about it? I was like… “Yeah, pretty much.” I explained that, as children, we didn’t precisely know that he was homosexual. I mean… we were eight. It’s not like WE were into girls or our own sexuality yet either! But knowing this NOW explained a lot of what we observed as kids. It didn’t change anything - not ever having been a bully myself, or ever having harassed him, etc… it wasn’t like this revelation filled me with any regrets. We weren’t friends simply because we had nothing in common. But it did certainly go a long way towards filling in some of the blanks.
Anyway, enough of that. I’ll believe you’re not born gay as soon as an actual GAY PERSON comes forward and tells me so, giving me some time to press him or her to make sure that we’re agreed on the semantics of the question. Until then? Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. I say so, every homosexual I’ve ever encountered says so, and the research done by people who are far more qualified to make that statement than I am says so.
Period.
The next point in debate that I want to address is that of marriage. In the same recent comment William summed up what I’m sure the right considers to be a reasonable position, saying that he “[PP] supports civil unions but has a problem with it being called marriage.” Now I have to make a confession and a partial concession here. Personally? I think that getting hung up on what it’s CALLED is just utterly stupid. Yes, I think it’s stupid for the Williams’es of the world, but I also – for the longest time – would get furious with the GAYS for pressing this point! For the longest time, my feelings were that if they’re being given everything they’re asking for – or shoot, even 99% or even HALF of what they’re asking for – and they would get this if they just accept that it be CALLED something different? Holy fucking shit, just take whatever you can get, you stupid fuck-wads! It’s not like all progress is going to end with any ONE THING! Take what you can get and MOVE ON – to getting more and more and more every passing year and worry about stupid shit like the fucking NAME after all of the PRACTICAL and LEGAL matters are settled!
I felt that way for a really long time, and I’ll have to admit that some small part of me still might. But the other 99.9% of me? No longer does.
I’m not going to make some irrelevant speech about the dangers of “separate but equal.” No one is going to make those with civil unions use a different water fountain or sit at the back of the bus. And the attack dogs and firehouses (or in the modern context: hate crimes) won’t distinguish between the married homosexuals and single ones. Because we’re talking about marriage in the sole context of it being a LEGAL CONTRACT, that carries with it certain RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES and OBLIGATIONS, it would be an almost trivial exercise to create a TRUE “separate but equal” status here. Because let’s face it: The LAST TIME we heard “separate but equal,” it simply wasn’t equal. But it could be in this case. All it would take is a Federal Law stating that any mention of marriage in any Law at the Federal, State or Local Level shall be assumed to read “marriage or civil union,” and that this assumption shall be binding and applied retroactively. One simple, clear statement would settle the “separate but equals” concerns for all time.
There are just a few problems with that...
First of all: NO ONE IS OFFERING THAT! Show me where this is being offered, and I might be inclined to go back to saying, “TAKE IT, NIMRODS!” But there’s also a…
Second Problem: Laws get changed ALL THE TIME. If there was merely ONE LAW that guaranteed this equality? It would only take a change to ONE LAW to take some of it away. Only ONE LAW would have to be repealed to take ALL of it away! Call it marriage? And you’d have to change THOUSANDS OF LAWS if you wanted to take away their rights. And that’s really why it must be called “marriage.” Because that’s what our LAWS call it.
And the more I think about it: Other than a desire to eventually make these two things increasing NOT EQUAL over time, why other reason (beyond placating the bigots) could there possibly be to have two separate names for these things?!
Also… I’ve gotten the argument many times that this should be a STATE issue. That each state should be able to decide how they want to handle it. This is bullshit a complete non-starter. Because while any state may have anywhere form a few dozen to a few hundred laws regarding marriage – including the protection of property rights, work benefits, co-insurance, etc…? The federal laws involving marriage and the rights and privileges of married people number in the TENS OF THOUSANDS. It absolutely MUST be something that is dealt with at the federal level, because it is the federal government that provides the lion’s share of the legal protections, rights, benefits and obligations regarding marriage. Arguing otherwise reveals only one’s own ignorance and arouses suspicions in others of one’s own prejudices.
And really… regarding marriage, or *sigh* the INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE. Really… these arguments from TRADITION are just plain stupid. In my lifetime there were still states where it was illegal for Blacks and Whites to marry. That changed. There remain countries today where interfaith marriages are illegal. And if you go back to biblical times – and up through to about a century or so ago – marriage was little more than a property transfer, as poor families married off their daughters as best they could, and royalty used it as a tool for diplomacy. That’s changed. The institution of marriage is CONSTANTLY changing. And even if you ignore the numerous changes in the way various societies have viewed marriage over the years, you remain faced with countless assaults on the Institution of Marriage far greater than the idea of two men or two women happily sharing a life with one another. In fact, given the divorce rate, the increasing rate of domestic violence, the rampant adultery, the 72-hour celebrity marriages, the bachelor / bachelorette Reality Shows, etc…? I’d say that they thought of ANY two people settling down and loving each other and building a life together would do the institution of marriage rather a damned bit of GOOD, regardless of their gender.
And finally, before closing on the LEGAL issues, I have a challenge for anyone who’s not with me yet.
First of all, let’s realize that as far as our Government in concerned marriage is in fact no more than a LEGAL CONTRACT. Any talk of spiritual bonding, or any other romantic ideal, is completely immaterial to our government. That is the purview (at best) of the individual CHURCHES. And, in case you haven’t heard, we DO live in a SECULAR NATION and DO, in fact, have and recognize the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. And this is one of those perfect cases that protects the CHURCH’S interests as much as the homosexual’s: Just as the Church (and their legions of brainwashed masses) do not have the authority to tell the government who they can and can’t marry, nor does the Government have any authority to tell any church that they marry, or indeed even recognize the marriage of, ANYONE they don’t wish to. (And the day the gays start ASKING for that, mark my words, I’ll be the first one to be arguing “separation of church and state” AGAINST them!) So you can put aside any mention of Jesus, God, Allah, Muhammad, Vishnu, Zeus, Odin or Ra, not to mention the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, the Iliad or the Odyssey. It doesn’t matter, and the First Amendment of our Constitution says as much in plain, simple English, so don’t waste your time or mine with any of that nonsense. Marriage, in any discussion involving the LAW, is no more than a legal contract.
So here’s the challenge: Give me an example of any other LEGAL CONTRACT that I can enter into with another person or persons where our genders become an issue. There isn’t any. Oh, there used to be. There used to be many examples, seeing as how at one point women weren’t allowed to own land, conduct business, vote, refuse the advances of their husbands, etc… But that’s all been done away with now. There exists now no other legal contract that requires a certain gender to be legally binding. And there’s simply no reason based in logic or legality to maintain gender discrimination in this case. And the “Why?” question that will inevitably rise from that statement leads into my final point:
IT DOES NO HARM.
It does no harm, and it brings great happiness to those people affected by these laws.
Who is harmed?
The parents? Puh-Lease. How long has it been, and in which backwards cultures do parents have any legal say in who you marry? My parents HATED my wife. Fuck ‘em. I loved her, and I remain married to her, and they just had to deal. Parents want grandkids? Hey: It’s only the action of ignorant bigots that prevents gay couples from marrying and adopting, so who’s REALLY doing all the harm there? Natural Grandkids you say? Well, first of all, my cousin, my sister and I are ALL adopted. So FUCK YOU. Secondly, does a naturally infertile couple victimize their parents or society? What’s that? They didn’t CHOOSE to be infertile? Well shoot… The other couple didn’t choose to be gay! What if I don’t marry at all? Isn't that my right? Am I harming my parents then? What if I become a Priest? Sure, not likely, but it’s still my choice, and not one my parents would prefer that I make. I still wouldn't be harming them! And BTW… I have two sons who are AUTISTIC. So if anyone thinks that I would have the slightest iota of sympathy for someone who’s crying over their child being gay or transgendered, my feeling on their "plight" can best summed up as: GROW THE FUCK UP, YOU WHINY LITTLE BITCHES! YOU THINK YOU’VE GOT PROBLEMS? YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT A PROBLEM IS! GROW UP, GET SOME FUCKING THERAPY, AND LOVE AND SUPPORT YOUR CHILD, YOU HEARTLESS FUCKS!
Parents always say that they “just want their children to be happy.” Well… time to man up and put your money where your mouth is regarding that otherwise principled ideal. Those who fail this simple test?
Head? Meet brick.
I once had one inbred jackass tells me that it spreads disease. One even told me that it CAUSES it. Ok… I PROBABLY don’t need to spell this out for MOST of my readers, but here’s a simple epidemiology lesson for the C-students out there. SEX spreads diseases. This is true with Heterosexuals, and this is true with Homosexuals. If two people who have no diseases have sex with each other, a MILLION TIMES, UNPROTECTED, guess what? They will NEVER get a sexually transmitted disease. (And, uh… tongue-in-cheek here, but homosexuality is also absent the risk of unwanted pregnancy.) (Just sayin’.) On the other hand… if one person is having unprotected sex with a person who HAS A SEXUALLY TRAMISSIBLE DISEASE… well, it’s really only a matter of time until they contract it. And again… This is true of heterosexuals and homosexuals. And the RATE of transmission is immaterial. That one practice may be slightly more risky than another is completely irrelevant because in each case it is a matter of inevitability.
Chance of my contracting a disease having sex with another man who has no diseases?
ZERO
Chance of my contracting a disease having sex with woman who does has a diseases?
>ZERO
Or…
=f(how many times we have sex)
So again… this is just stupid.
And in closing, because I can already hear someone *cough*
SHUT THE FUCK UP, NO I’M NOT.
Allowing someone to have a choice, and to make that choice without taking away any of the rights, freedoms and protections that the rest of society takes for granted is NOT how you “impose your values” on someone. I am not taking anything away from anyone, and nor does Gay Marriage. As usual, I am arguing for, and defending, freedom. And freedom is not something you can IMPOSE upon someone. Even if I “force” you to live free… What you do next, remains, by definition, your choice. That’s what freedom MEANS. I may not LIKE your choice, but as I leave it your choice to make, regarding your own life and taking nothing from anyone else? Well, I remain solidly on the side of freedom.
The only people who are “imposing their values on someone else” are the religious funny-mentalists that make up the opposition to Homosexual equality. Those people who would say, “NO, you MAY NOT do this thing!” Apply that test to ANY ISSUE, and you’ll see who’s on the side of freedom – those who would protect your choices – and those who are against it – those who would take those choices away.
God bless America and our freedom and the people that he decided to make gay and transgendered.
(And a big ‘FUUUUUCK YOOOOOOU!’ to anyone who’s not with me on that!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)