Good one NOM!

The National Organization for Marriage made this new ad for New Hampshire's House bill supporting gay marriage:



The guy on HuffPost that posted this made a good point: These children aren't confused about gay marriage, but about homosexuality itself. And the kid who says that it should be "Ann & Eve" was totally put up to say that, so his confusion was manufactured. It's almost like, "oh, kids say the darndest things" and that is it. As someone who watched the "storm gathering" video, completely shocked by the overt homophobia, I find myself even more shocked that this group is using children to sell its point, just like the Prop 8 supporters did last year. Talk about exploitation. Children inherently don't understand many abstract things that adults do. Their brains really can't do it. At the ages shown the commercial, most are egocentric and think concretely. Homosexuality and same-sex marriage are very foreign ideas to them, and to use them to sell a sick point is just wrong.

Let's be frank, NOM: You're a homophobic group who want the religious teachings of your intolerant "God" (I use quotes because these people are hardly Christian or understand the teachings of Christ) melded with civic life, so that you may oppress other whom you deem second- or third-class citizens who do not, under any circumstances, deserve the same rights you enjoy.

If they only used that language when selling their filthy shit to the public.

Another point to make about confused children: "Why does Daddy hit Mommy when he drinks out of the green bottle with the reindeer on it (Jägermeister)?" Nobody is exploiting the children on this issue, as it is a delicate issue. Same sex marriage should be the same way.

Let's leave the children out of this fight, you idiots. Go back to spreading your homophobia the "traditional" way, and let's hope you get run out of town.

Sean Hannity Needs to Go Away

Ok, so why not listen to a guy who has served as a Navy SEAL, gone through the SERE training, and served as a Governor of a decently populated state? What does Sean Hannity know more than Jesse Ventura? I wish he could have actually body-slammed Hannity. It was a TV moment I would have paid to see.

But my bigger point of posting about this video: Why does Sean Hannity get to spew his filth on national TV? Why does he get to tell the news and put his opinion on the airwaves when it is clearly wrong? When he clearly doesn't have a grasp of reality? I have this criticism of all cable news shows, including the ones I watch on a daily basis. It is unfortunate that these people are not held accountable for what they say more and that TV shows are based on ratings and not substance. It is a shame that Sean Hannity can say the stupidest things in the world (President Bush "inherited the negative impacts of 9/11") and continue to make money because those statements rev up a base that feels the same way, watch his show, and make him the number one cable news show. It is also unfortunate that he can convince the people who watch his show that what he says is golden truth.

I'm glad he got his ass handed to him by Jesse Ventura. However, it's too bad it won't do anything to change Hannity. He is going to continue to pollute the airwaves with his propaganda and utter falsehoods. Can we do something about that? Perhaps he'll drown if he ever mans up to Charles Grodin's and Keith Olbermann's challenge to be waterboarded for charity.

Oh, if we can only be so lucky!

Some Minor Rumblings and Ramblings

Again, I apologize to all my avid readers that I haven't been updating like I did in April. I will try harder to update at least once a week, but one every other day or every two days.

This post is not going to be on any specific topics, just what has been in the news lately, because I'm not really fuming on anything. Today's topics haven't been all that exciting, either.

So we have all this torture talk, with what seems like new information everyday. Am I alone in thinking this subject is getting very tired? We have two extremes on both sides of the political spectrum: the right is pretty much defending torture, or at least the Bush admin's use of it in some doomsday scenario "we've got a ticking time bomb". On the left we have calls for senior Bush officials to be prosecuted, including Bush and Cheney themselves, which seems like an act that would further divide this country with every taking sides on every issue, the others on each side calling one another morally suspect.

It seems we are at an impasse. I can understand the left's calls for prosecution of torture. It's bad. Really bad. And it has been said time and time again that it is ineffective on all counts. It's only logical that it would be ineffective, since humans will do anything to prevent themselves from feeling pain (physical or psychological). If you are being hurt, and you are being told what information the person hurting wants, the only way to make them stop is to tell them what they want to hear. Thus, the pain stops. You probably have no idea what you said, and it is most likely false information that will be used against you later. It still made the pain stop. Along with it being really bad, it is also globally illegal. The US wasn't a founding member of the UN for no reason. We had an obligation to decide what was right or wrong during times of war or otherwise.

I obviously don't agree with the right on any of their arguments regarding torture, because they lack any evidence or justification under jurisprudence. They may be rationalized nonstop until the wars end, but that's not going to justify them. However, one bit I do agree with is can we stop with the talk of it already. There are many people strongly arguing on both sides, but I think we've heard enough, and we need to stop running our mouths about it. There is only so much speaking we can do on a subject before it is dead and boring. Sure new information comes out daily, whether leaked or otherwise, but it doesn't mean we should spend 16 hours of the news cycle beating and flossing a dead horse. If there isn't going to be prosecution, can we let it go. I mean, I was unhappy about Bush being president, but was anything done about it? Obviously not. So if lawmakers and the people in charge are not going to do anything about it, then please stop talking about it. I beg of thee liberals, I beg of thee Dick Cheney, I beg of thee neo-cons. 

Of course, by no means do I not want prisoners of war treated with any disrespect or without habeas corpus. If there are detainees that are not guilty of anything, release them. Just like we do here in the US. Sure, if they were guilty, and go out and commit another crime, then by all means take 'em down. However, the argument of "oh, but you'll be subjecting innocent lives to a person who wants to see them die" is not valid. You can't know what is uncertain. There is a principle in chemistry, created by Heisenberg, which basically says that subatomic particles are so energetic, that once you get a lock on one, it has already moved, so it is impossible to determine its position and momentum at the same time. So, to put it in the terms I'm talking about: You think crazy Muslim extremist will do harm when he is released, but he has done nothing wrong that can be ascertained by empirical means. Therefore, you have his position, but not his momentum. You think you have his momentum too, but its too tricky to tell. If you focus on momentum too much, you'll lose his position, and you will never know if he will do any harm. Uncertainty to the fullest. Yes, hindsight is 20-20, and foresight is blind. So why not afford due process?

So that went a little longer than I had anticipated, but no worries. I have a slightly different topic to cover now: Miss California Carrie Prejean. First off, shut up. Beauty pageant contestants should not be heard about anything (e.g. Mrs. Palin), because all they offer is their opinion. If you have no real solutions, then who gives a shit about your opinion? I can say that I believe everything should be free, but if I have no solution to make that happen, it is just words. It's not surprising that Trump didn't fire her because is fucking doesn't matter. It's not like she's doing anything noteworthy. IT'S IN THE FUCKING TITLE: BEAUTY pageant. It is also not shocking that she's guest-hosting Fox & Friends, joined the national marriage haters group that think a "storm" (gay storm, in case you weren't aware) is coming, and is an all-around idiot (Two things: she call it opposite marriage for fucksake, and she was saying that Satan asked her the question; I wouldn't give Perez that much credit). Can we end her 15 minutes already?

And lastly: Can we please get rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? It doesn't make any sense. Period. First of all, not asking is irrelevant, because it shouldn't be any business of the military to know whether or not someone is gay. Secondly, shouldn't military personnel be upfront with everyone about their lifestyles. "Oh, I wear women's clothing and kill bunnies," is an ok lifestyle, but as soon as that guy says he has sex with other men, it's no good. Getting rid of Arabic translators is also fucking retarded. You know what, let's send it the guys who speak Spanish to Iraq and Afghanistan, I mean full-blooded Latinos, because their machismo will prevent them from being gay and they can speak Spanish to the natives. Yeah, that's sounds real fucking golden.

It's a stupid program and law and needs to die. If I wanted to live int he 12th century, I'd build a time machine and go there. I rest my case.

Joe the "Idiot"

Sorry I haven't update in a couple of weeks, but I've been slightly tired and busy! The beginning of the month will do that to me!

So Joe the "Plumber" is an idiot. A big idiot. So much of an idiot, I do not and will not put it past the conservative movement in this country to keep using him as a semi-spokesman.

Recently, and I'm sure you've heard by now, he spoke with Christianity Today about gay marriage. Here's the excerpt everyone is talking about:

"Christianity Today: In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?

Wurzelbacher: At a state level, it's up to them. I don't want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it's wrong. People don't understand the dictionary--it's called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It's not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we're supposed to do--what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we're supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I've had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn't have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they're people, and they're going to do their thing."

So now we're all idiots because we don't understand the dictionary. You know, it's one of the very few times a dimbulb will use the DICTIONARY to justify a slur. So, by definition, I can call Joe a queer. I mean, in my opinion, he's strange and unusual. So that's makes him a queer by his own explanation. So, following his own logic, his kids shouldn't be allowed around him, because he's a queer and he doesn't want his kids near queers. But you, at the same time, he's a person, and he's going to use stupid speech at every turn, because he's a queer.

Here's the full definition of queer: 

queer      (kwîr)    
adj.   queer·er, queer·est

1. Deviating from the expected or normal; strange: a queer situation.
2. Odd or unconventional, as in behavior; eccentric. See Synonyms at strange.
3. Of a questionable nature or character; suspicious.
4. Slang Fake; counterfeit.
5. Feeling slightly ill; queasy.
6. Offensive Slang Homosexual.
7. Usage Problem Of or relating to lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, or transgendered people.

n.  

1. Offensive Slang Used as a disparaging term for a homosexual person.
2. Usage Problem A lesbian, gay male, bisexual, or transgendered person.

tr.v.   queered, queer·ing, queers Slang

1. To ruin or thwart: "might try to queer the Games with anything from troop movements . . . to a bomb attack"(Newsweek).
2. To put (someone) in a bad position.

[Perhaps from Low German, oblique, off-center, from Middle Low German dwer; see terk^w- in Indo-European roots.]
queer'ish adj., queer'ly adv., queer'ness n.

Usage Note: A reclaimed word is a word that was formerly used solely as a slur but that has been semantically overturned by members of the maligned group, who use it as a term of defiant pride. Queer is an example of a word undergoing this process. For decades queer was used solely as a derogatory adjective for gays and lesbians, but in the 1980s the term began to be used by gay and lesbian activists as a term of self-identification. Eventually, it came to be used as an umbrella term that included gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people. Nevertheless, a sizable percentage of people to whom this term might apply still hold queer to be a hateful insult, and its use by heterosexuals is often considered offensive. Similarly, other reclaimed words are usually offensive to the in-group when used by outsiders, so extreme caution must be taken concerning their use when one is not a member of the group.

Actually, by Joe's logic, he's allowed to use the word queer, since he is one. But don't tell him that, he may get offended!

Here's the problem using lexical definitions to support your bigotry: It's always going to backfire. Take the word "gay." It used to mean happy. Men used to say to each other "we're gay together" and it was totally platonic and heterosexual. Now, "gay" primarily means homosexual. It also morphed into a slang term meaning "lame." Many of the definitions of gay still say forms of "happy." So in Joe's case, if he had used gay, then he is basically saying that homosexuals are happier than he is, and damn them to hell! Again, it backfires.

He also does a horrible job of trying to soften his blow about his children and that homosexuals are sinners by using the phrase "at the same time." It doesn't work like that. You can't have an opinion AND be ambivalent. You're either have a feelings about something, or you're apathetic. Bygones are bygones, or they are not. One or the other Joe. You can't walk down both streets just because you have friends that are "actually" homosexual (as if he has tried not believing it, and all of his hair fell out).

Joe the "Plumber", the biggest touted heavyweight of the conservative movement right now, running his mouth like a leaky hose. He is someone in my mind that makes me fear for the future of the human race.