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.

Warren Invoked for Obama Inauguration Invocation (Alliteration!)

I'm not sure if I understand what the entire hullabaloo is on Obama choosing Rick Warren for his inauguration invocation.

So, the way I see it, a religious ceremony begins the state ceremony. Not so much separate, but that's another story for another day. It doesn't mean Warren is now apart of Obama's administration, offering any advice, or involved in any decision making or policy debate. I'm not even sure Obama even owes anyone an explanation for the choices he makes.

I get that many minority groups helped get him elected, and he was the way better choice than old man McCain and crazy lady Palin, but I am certain that not every group is going to be happy about every choice he makes. Bottom line is that he can't please everyone at once. He's going to make a certain group happy while he annoys another. He'll then make the one he annoyed happy while making the other annoyed. It's a political cycle that is inherent from human behavior and human nature.

Perhaps then blog posts like Chris Durang's post on The Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-durang/gay-and-feeling-hurt-by-o_b_152348.html, feel a little misplaced. He speaks to the fact that Obama has his own reason for choosing Rick Warren, but he feels left out since he is gay. I understand his argument about the non-afflicted not feeling the affliction, but I'm not sure he understands that he too is one that is non-afflicted, such as what faces a young Latina in certain places of the world.

I don't know, maybe I'm so jaded by things, and don't take offense to much, but unless something is really egregious, like Obama saying "All gay people should die," I don't think the gay community should be angered by such a small action of choosing Rick Warren for the invocation, as I believe it will disappear very quickly from the collective consciousness of the nation and the world. It is an historic event, but to focus on such a small bit of it seems, like I said, misplaced, and nitpicky. I don't think an invocation is necessary for an inauguration, but seems religion is a powerful force in culture, I let it alone. I know that Rick Warren has horrible views on homosexuality, and that he supported Prop 8, but I can't fault Obama from doing what he wants at his own inauguration.

And on the new meanderings about Warren becoming Obama's new Reverend Wright controversy crap, I say shut it because it's just stupid. There's no reason for this comparison, and people need to stop getting butt-hurt about it. Not to be insensitive to the gay community, as I strongly feel Prop 8 is horrible, but there are other things to direct your energy, like overturning Prop 8, instead of vilifying Warren for 5 minutes in the spotlight. You get Obama for 4 years, possibly 8 years, and we can work toward a more perfect union, inclusive of homosexuals and other minorities alike.