Monday, December 29, 2008

No F***ing Way

Now, I already knew that Rush Limbaugh was douchebag, but giggling like a naughty schoolboy over a racist parody song (by fellow douchebag Paul Shanklin)? You have GOT to be kidding me! This is the most offensive bullshit since Abu Ghraib.

Look, I actually think that most Republicans, while I don't agree with their politics, are decent people. A little selfish, a little pushy with the holy-roller crap, maybe, but basically decent. And, a good many GOP honchos are speaking out against Chip Saltsman's inclusion of this ugly little Aryan Nation-ish ditty on a Christmas cd for members of the RNC. As well they should. I'm not even suggesting that those guys are less horrified than I by this whole ugly thing. His response to the whole mess?
"Paul Shanklin is a long-time friend, and I think that RNC members have the good humor and good sense to recognize that his songs for the Rush Limbaugh show are light-hearted political parodies." SERIOUSLY!?

You guys, guys....and I'm talking to any self-described conservatives out there who might, through some freak chance, see this blog....people are listening to this guy. Rush is on the air because he gets monster ratings. And make no mistake, he is speaking for you, for your party, for your family values, whether you asked for it or not. And this Saltsman character is running for the chairmanship of the Republican National Party!

This is why you get such a knee-jerk rejection from us liberals every time you say or do anything. Because while most of you I could probably come to an understanding, if not an agreement with, this jerk? And his sadly numerous peers? I'm sorry to tell you this, but they are speaking for you all, and a disturbingly large number of you are nodding along in agreement.

Saturday, December 27, 2008

Those Damn Queers Are Demanding "Rights" Again!

Recently, featured the following column by Jack Kerwick: (italics are mine)

Proposition 8 and the events that have unfolded in the wake of its passage in California have reignited the controversy over so-called “gay marriage.” Partisans on both sides of this issue invariably characterize it as an issue over the “definition” of marriage: those on the Right want to continue “defining” marriage as a union between “a man and a woman”, while those on the Left seek to expand its definition to encompass unions between members of the same sex.

While the issue at stake here definitely involves “the definition” of marriage, to understand it only in these terms is to both misunderstand and grossly understate what is at stake. No arguement there.

The claim that this debate centers on a disagreement over a “definition” erroneously suggests that the proponents and opponents of “gay marriage” differ with one another merely in degree ; in fact, the conflict between them runs much deeper than the term “definition” would indicate. Yep, all the way down to the basic rights heterosexual Americans take for granted. Like the right to be protected from discrimination in housing and employment, the right of spousal inheritence, and all other societal privileges granted to heterosexual marriages.

Republicans and Democrats entertain (or at least claim to entertain) different “definitions” of government, yet insofar as the one Party champions “Big Government” while the other promotes “Small Government,” their disagreement appears to be one of degree. Couldn't resist that tired old "big government" dig, even now, could ya, Kerwick?

In contrast, the difference between the two conceptions of “marriage” in question is a difference in kind . Here we go, let the spin begin.

Reflection on the history of the institution of marriage makes it possible to abstract from the contingencies and relativities of time and place an ideal type, that is, a set of presuppositions underlying and, thus, surviving the fluctuations that actual marriage has undergone and in the absence of which it wouldn’t be the institution that it is. Good thing it's "fluctuated" away from that whole "women as property" beginning, huh? Oh wait...

Admittedly, these presuppositions are few in number, but they are unmistakable. Anyone else sense mistakes coming up?

Marriage is, first, an enduring, indeed, permanent union (Not even gonna bother looking up divorce rates here.); second, it is the permanent union between members of the opposite sex—an inherently heterosexual compact; finally, it is a union from which children can be and are expected to spring.

Those on the Right who oppose “gay marriage” by arguing that marriage is and always has been “the union of a man and a woman” are being less than fully honest. Wow, what a humbling admission!

It is much more accurate to say that marriage has always been a union between men and women .

“Polygamy” -- the union of one man and several women -- has been the historical norm. “Polyandry” -- the union of one woman and multiple men -- though much rarer, is not unheard of. Anthropological evidence suggests that history is not without cultures that sanctioned the marrying of sons and mothers! Holy marriage trivia, Batman! And, of course, marriage has been expressed through the form of monogamy.

The proponents of these various expressions of marriage often disagree fiercely and passionately with one another over the proper form of marriage. Still, their disagreement is one of degree. There is no disagreement that marriage is an inherently heterosexual union, the means by which the human race is replenished and civilized. I think it's nice they were all able to agree on that at least, don't you?

The proponents of so-called “gay-marriage” demand not merely a “re-definition” of marriage -- marriage has been continually redefined throughout its history -- they demand, rather, that two fundamentally distinct, irreducible kinds of association, the one “marital,” the other “non-marital,” be collapsed into one another. To paraphrase Aristotle, it was as if they insisted on describing the conclusions of mathematics in terms of “virtue” and “vice,” “justice” and “injustice,” and ethics in terms of “axioms” and “proofs.” I'll see your Aristotle and raise you Platos' Republic on the subject of marriage.

In short, the proponents of “gay marriage” claim a “right” (Those zany homosexuals and their wacky claims of "rights"!) to a contradiction in terms: “same-sex unions” simply cannot be marital. Bearing in mind that the argument in favor of “same-sex marriage” is not simply an argument in favor of but one more revision of the “definition” of marriage, but instead rests upon a fundamental confusion of categories, it is not difficult to recognize the comparison with earlier restrictions on inter-racial marriage that are often made for the spurious analogy that it is. Funny, it all looks like hate to me.

That parties to a marriage be of the same racial background is not a postulate of marriage. Or, to use the idiom of an earlier era, race is an “accidental” feature of marriage, while heterosexuality is “essential” to it. Because only heterosexuals can take vows and exchange rings?

Mormons have incurred the wrath of the supporters of “same sex marriage” for their endorsement of Proposition 8. In response to the outrageous manner in which members of the Church of Latter Day Saints (LDS) have been treated, it would be something like poetic justice if they would now assert their “right” to marry whomever and how many ever people they wanted to marry. While our society judges polygamy an undesirable marital arrangement, unlike homosexual “unions,” at least polygamy is a form of marriage. I kinda wish they'd take ya up on that, if only so I could watch ya'll try to fight this battle on two fronts.

Paraphrasing Aristotle, correcting fellow pundits on their semantics, and using tortured sentence structure do not make for a compelling arguement, Mr. Kerwick. There's a reason you have to work so hard to make your case against gay marriage. It's always difficult to defend an exclusive veiwpoint, because such a position requires one to dismiss all other opinions as foolish and without merit. If you'd step away from your irrational fear that we are trying to take something away from you for a moment, maybe you could see how damaging it is to society as a whole to marginalize an entire segment of the population on the basis of who (whom?) they love.

You've Gotta See This

I stayed home last night and watched the Thrashers / Hurricanes game on TV because I really can't afford to spend any money on hockey tickets just now. I kind of wish I'd gone, even though the Thrashers ended up losing 5-4, just so I could say I'd been there when players from both teams scored hat tricks. Brian Little got the first HT of his career, and the guy just keeps getting better and better. Unfortunately, so does Eric Staal, who made two of his three goals unassisted.

But as exciting as that game was, it had nothing as amazing as John Tavare's bouncy - bouncy goal in the World Junior's exhibition game against Slovokia. Watch the video. Even if you're not a hockey fan, it's impressive (and kind of funny). Commenter oddlay (be odd if he was, judging by his profile) laments "Too bad he's doomed to be chosen by the Islanders or the Thrashers".
I sure hope we get him, he'd be a nice addition to this quietly improving team.

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Survivor Gabon

No, Corrine was not my favorite this season, nor was the equally wretched Randy. I heart Sugar. Wanna see why? Check out Andy Denhart's interviews with the cast members on Reality Blurred.

Rage & Reindeer

I don't exactly hate the holidays, I like the extra days off, and the plentiful baked treats. I don't have any religious beliefs, but the story about baby Jesus is about as inoffensive a myth as the Santa one, so I got no hate on there.

Predictably, there are also things I don't like about the holidays. Here's a few:

The endless, jingle bell infested, magical snowman and/or reindeer referencing, child-oriented, nerve-grating music. It's playing everywhere I go, and I'm warning you all - it kicks my homicidal tendencies up a couple of notches.

The family obligations. Visiting family is hard on an angry old bitch like me. These are, after all, the people who provided the genesis of my inner rage. Choking down all that old resentment while listening to Fox News "talking points" being mindlessly regurgitated by weak, fearful relatives, against a backdrop of noisy, dirty-faced children in church donated shabby clothing leaves me in a depressive funk that my meds can't even touch. It's a white-trash Christmas!

Present pressure. Yes, even my twisted, bitter soul is not immune to the desire to give gifts to friends, donations to strangers, and most of all, brightly colored baubles for the aforementioned dirty-faced children. Because I know all too well just how dark and sad their lives are, even if they don't....yet. Of course, I cannot afford to give any gifts this year. I'm barely keeping my bills paid. So, the extra pressure? Not really needing it right now, thanks.

Jingle-rage. Is it just me, or do people get more hostile during the holidays? I'm not just talking about the mall madness, either. The traffic is horrible, drivers are so aggressive even an anger junkie like me thinks "Man, be cool already, we'll all get there if everyone plays nice."

Christmas Crime. Maybe it's the present pressure, or maybe it's just the wealth of opportunities during the yearly orgy of consumerism, but burglaries, smash & grabs, armed robberies, and every other variation on the theme of theft are as much a part of the holidays as ribbons and Rudolph.

Happy freakin' holidays.

Monday, December 22, 2008

What a Dick!

In a new CNN poll, 23% of Americans think that Dick Cheney is the worst vice president in history. When asked to comment on the results, Dan Quayle responded "Already? Agnew had a longer run than me! You guys suck!"

In other news, less than 25% of Americans are paying attention to national and world events.

Sunday, December 21, 2008

Why comics?

Because costumed superheroes can do what I can't. They face off against the evil and corrupt in society and beat the crap out of them. They do what's right, even when they are personally conflicted. They stand up for the little guy when no one else will. They put the greater good ahead of individual gain. And they look good in tights.

Friday, December 19, 2008

Homophobia is The American Way

The United States refused to sign a U.N. resolution calling for the decriminalization of homosexuality. Not surprisingly, Muslim nations and the Vatican also declined to support the resoultion. So, really, all the theocracies are in favor of criminal penalties for homosexuality.

The only really shocking thing about this to me is my own capacity to be even more disgusted by what has become of our country than I already was after 7+ years of Facist policies.

Keeping with the theme of forcing religious views on others, NPR's Julie Rovner has an excellent piece on their site about Bush's latest bullshit. The upshot of it is that now Dr. Jesusfreak can not only refuse to give a rape victim a "morning after" pill, but can even decline to mention the option exists.

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Making the case for court-ordered vasectomies

From the AP:
EASTON, Pa. – The father of 3-year-old Adolf Hitler Campbell, denied a birthday cake with the child's full name on it by one New Jersey supermarket, is asking for a little tolerance.

Because clearly, tolerance is this family's watchword.

Heath Campbell and his wife, Deborah, are upset not only with the decision made by the Greenwich ShopRite, but with an outpouring of angry Internet postings in response to a local newspaper article over the weekend on their flare-up over frosting.
"I think people need to take their heads out of the cloud they've been in and start focusing on the future and not on the past," Heath Campbell said Tuesday in an interview conducted in Easton, on the other side of the Delaware River from where the family lives in Hunterdon County, N.J.
"There's a new president and he says it's time for a change; well, then it's time for a change," the 35-year-old continued. "They need to accept a name. A name's a name. The kid isn't going to grow up and do what (Hitler) did."

As much as we may want him to....

Deborah Campbell, 25, said she phoned in her order last week to the ShopRite. When she told the bakery department she wanted her son's name spelled out, she was told to talk to a supervisor, who denied the request.
Karen Meleta, a spokeswoman for ShopRite, said the Campbells had similar requests denied at the same store the last two years and said Heath Campbell previously had asked for a swastika to be included in the decoration.

Because the swastika is obviously the universal symbol for Happy Birthday, toddler!

"We reserve the right not to print anything on the cake that we deem to be inappropriate," Meleta said. "We considered this inappropriate."

I'm pretty sure allowing these people to breed is inappropriate.

The Campbells' other two children also have unusual names: JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell turns 2 in a few months and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell will be 1 in April.
Heath Campbell said he named his son after Adolf Hitler because he liked the name and because "no one else in the world would have that name." He sounded surprised by all the controversy the dispute had generated.

Here's another unique name idea for ya, Heath, how about Daddysan Idiot Campbell?

Campbell said his ancestors are German and that he has lived his entire life in Hunterdon County. On Tuesday he wore a pair of black boots he said were worn by a German soldier during World War II.
He said he was raised not to avoid people of other races but not to mix with them socially or romantically. But he said he would try to raise his children differently.

Off to a great start there, genius.

"Say he grows up and hangs out with black people. That's fine, I don't really care," he said. "That's his choice."

Here's hoping his choice is to change his name and disown the mental midgets who begat him.

Monday, December 15, 2008

Human Rights Declaration

From Katie Couric's Notebook:
This week marks the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In 1948, former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt championed the document at the United Nations. The atrocities of the Holocaust gave its words grave meaning. It reads, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." It's a statement of rights, but also responsibilities. Violence in Darfur has claimed 300,000 lives and driven millions from their homes. Protesters in Myanmar have been beaten or killed for promoting democracy, and bloggers have been arrested in Iran for criticizing the regime. Sixty years later, the declaration is as necessary as it was when Mrs. Roosevelt stood before the United Nations. The rights it protects belong to all humans. The responsibilities it entrusts are yours and mine.

Somebody should tell the Republicans about this, so they can try to repeal it. Maybe the Mormons have some money left from their Proposition 8 bullshit.

Sunday, December 14, 2008

If The Shoe Fits

An Iraqi journalist sums up worldwide opinion of George Bush's legacy.

Greedy Bastards

Greedy bastards rank very high on the list of things that piss me off. Here's how the greedy oil producing bastards have decided to help out with the collapse of the world economy:

Saturday, December 13, 2008

Me & George

Monday is payday. I have exactly one dollar. Uncharacteristically, I've decided not to let this piss me off. Instead, I've propped my dollar up against my monitor, and I'm hanging out with my pal, George Washington. He doesn't laugh at any of my jokes, and he didn't help me move the furniture to set up my new home office, but I like his cynical look.