Terminator Online

Palin and Her Big Mouth

2010-02-19T18:40:00.000-06:00

Just when I begin to think that Sarah Palin might actually have a brain, she opens her mouth and proves otherwise. Her latest blunder...trying to outlaw the use of the word "retarded"...has irritated me to no end.

First of all, if you look up the definition of the word, you'll find that it is not, in any way derogatory. In fact, a form of the word, the Italian "ritard" is used in music to indicate a slowing of tempo. Should we omit that word from all our music?

Also, Palin slammed the show "Family Guy" for having a character with Down's syndrome in its Valentine's Day episode. Bristol got in on it too, voicing her displeasure at the writers' introduction of the character and identify her with "a former governor of Alaska." The voice actor who performed that part, who has Down's syndrome, said that she didn't have a problem playing the part and wasn't at all offended by it.

The Terminator's take...We have enough political correctness, and we don't need to add to our list of words considered offensive. Pretty soon, we'll have to stop talking altogether. As for Palin, she might as well dress as a scarecrow and parade around singing, "if I only had a brain."

An Ode to The Angry Greek

2010-02-18T17:33:00.000-06:00

I have to take a moment to talk about the absoultely fabulous Angry Greek. She is so on top of Hollywood gossip that Perez Hilton is probably shaking in his computer chair (suddenly shuddering at that image...ewww!).

With such creativity, she weaves the stories of Brangelina, Hohan, and the Trollsens (just to name a few) using her own flowery prose. "Fuckery," abounds, and she finds it and shows it for what it is! Loonies (Wingnuts, Fundies, and the like) beware...if you choose to rant on her site, you'll be greeted by a barrage of supporters and a special little gift from the Greek herself, lol.

Check out her site, and lend your support!

I love your style, AG...keep up the great work!!

Concerned Women Mad About Biased Judge

2010-02-13T17:24:00.000-06:00

You all are gonna love this one!! In the Perry vs. Schwarzenegger marriage trial in California, some infuriating comments have come from wrtiters over at Concerned Women for America. This article, written by a man, by the way, tries to imply that the judge involved is biased because of his sexual orientation. See, he's gay!

*insert exasperated gasp here*

The very concerned woman, Mario Diaz, writes,

"Judge Walker allowed same-sex "marriage" supporters to present hours upon hours of irrelevant emotional appeals but little legal substance. Any reasonable observer could see there was nothing there. Time after time, witness after witness, those present could not help but wonder why this debate was even happening in that courtroom? Why was the judge allowing this circus to continue?"

First, I find putting the word marriage in quotes offensive. Allowing two people who are committed to each other to marry has no impact on heterosexual marriages and should be viewed on equal footing. As to the questions about the testimony, I don't know why Mr. Diaz is so confused. If he wished to marry someone...anyone...and was told he couldn't, he too would have some painful, heartfelt comments to make if given the chance. If he were in the same situation, he wouldn't be referring to the painful testimony of others as a "circus."

Further, what does the sexual orientation of the judge have to do with anything? Honestly, if we were to apply the same standard to divorce cases, would the sexual orientation or relationship history of the judge be called into question? No...because part of being a judge is to look at each case through the eyes of the law, without personal bias. The whole concept of drawing attention to this judge's sexual orientation is baffling to me.

The Terminator's take...Mr. Diaz, an obviously very concerned woman, is an idiot, and he proves it in one of his final statements...

"Now, I know that the judge's sexuality is not really important legally. His biased, activist and unlawful decisions are the real problem and not his motives. But it sure helps to explain a lot."

Yep, Mr. Diaz...it explains a lot!

Tea Party Hilarity

2010-02-13T17:06:00.000-06:00

I waited and waited for the hoopla to begin in Nashville, and I wasn't disappointed. Just take a look at this video from some of those lovable little nuts who attended...

Did you notice that when pressed about some of their fundamental issues, such as constitutionalism...they couldn't even come up with an example? About the only thing they could come up with was that Obama shouldn't have been allowed to run for the presidency. I suppose that no amount of documented evidence as to his country of birth will convice these wingnuts.

That aside, did you notice how much these fundies paid to attend? $550 bucks a head so they can get together and bash Obama, insult those who voted for and support Obama and whine about how much they are paying in taxes. That reminds me...did you hear Tancredo? Take a look at what he had to say about all who voted for Obama...

The Terminator's take...I don't know whether to laugh, cry or just punch Tancredo in the face. That first video was hilarious, showing how idiotic some of these folks are, but the second one infuriated me. You know as well as I do that if a Democrat questioned the literacy of a Republican, they'd never hear the end of it. It would be the Republican battle cry until election day. We should be used to it, though, since there is a constant double standard where these things are concerned. In the words of Forrest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does."

New Talking Head for Concerned Women

2010-01-30T16:12:00.000-06:00

First off, I have to applaud the Concerned Women of America for actually employing a woman to speak for them. I've blogged before about how the organization seems to allow men to do the talking, so the addition of Penny Nance is refreshing.

That said, Ms. Nance gave her analysis of the State of the Union speech and made me wonder if she'd actually heard the speech or just reported what she was told to report. In a summary statement of her report (which can be downloaded from CWA), CWA stated...

"CWA's CEO Penny Nance paid close attention to President Obama's State of the Union address. What she heard was an entrenching on liberal social policies and a list of new spending that will enslave our children to a crushing national debt."

The Terminator's take...Ms. Nance's statement reminded me of the nursery rhyme about the sky falling. Remember the one? Henny Penny runs to tell Lucky Ducky and all the others that the sky is falling. So, in nursery rhyme fashion, "Henny Penny" Nance has once again announced that the sky is falling...guess we should all tell the President, you think?

Babs Lets Loose Again...

2010-01-30T15:52:00.000-06:00

Peter LaBarbera never fails to give me something to write about everytime he opens his mouth. This time, he is ranting about the reckless actions of a few adults and applying that behavior to the entire homosexual community. Here's a bit of his rant...

"Once again we are confronted with the unparalleled deviance of a Sexual Perversion Movement that masquerades as a “civil rights” cause. As we’ve said many times, truth really is stranger than fiction when it comes to the “gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender/sadomasochist” (GLBTS?) lobby.
Just four days after attending a sadomasochistic party where he shot a fellow homosexual, Fred Homer Wilson, who “got a thrill out of using a loaded gun as a sex toy,” Bruce LaVallee-Davidson testified for “gay marriage” with his homosexual lover Buck at a public hearing."

The Terminator's take...first, what's with the phrase, "Once again?" Check out the article for yourself, and you'll see this is a statement made without any tangible support. Babs loves to make these outrageous statements to scare the hell out of society. Second, on the subject about the truth being stranger than fiction...let's take a look at John Edwards. Notice that the ultra-fundies aren't frothing at the mouth over this past week's revelations involving his affair. If we were to apply the same logic, heterosexual marriage is just as toxic as the idea of homosexual marriage...because of the actions of a few. Once again, the fundies have lost in the face of actual logic.

Anti Hate Banner Removed From School

2010-01-30T15:25:00.000-06:00

This should go in the file with other "boneheaded decisions made by people without a functioning brain!" Here's the story...a school in Wyoming posted the banner pictured below:

Now, because there is a logo from the Gay and Lesbian Forum from Colorado, the school board in Wheatland, WY decided it was inappropriate. They offered this quote as the reasoning (and I use that term extremely loosely) for their decision:

One board member, Joe Fabian, spoke with KCWY-13 and defended the vote.
"If someone pays and sponsors a program, typically they're saying I agree with this message ... The gay and lesbian community is promoting gay marriage, the is promoting gay marriage, Wheatland does not promote gay marriage," Fabian said.

The Terminator's take...look at the banner, folks. Where does it say anything about marriage, gay or otherwise? The answer...nowhere. The banner simply advocates NO HATE. It is reprehensible for adults to use their political views to oppose a simple campaign against hate in our schools. Fabian and his school board should be ashamed of themselves.

Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14294105#ixzz0e8JDswWT

Impeachment Rumblings All Over Again

2010-01-30T15:10:00.000-06:00

It's funny to me that regardless of who's in office, the opposition tries to find some reason to call for the impeachment of the current President. As with the past few Presidents, the Republicans have mounted a new campaign calling for the impeachment of Obama. Democrats did the same thing with Bush and Republicans called for and successfully impeached Clinton (Yes...Clinton was impeached by the House, but remained in office because the Senate did not vote to impeach).

The Terminator's take...impeachment is a serious event that should be called for under serious circumstances. It is NOT something that should be called for when one party disagrees with the policies of another. Just like the little boy who cried "wolf," politicians will soon be ignored by Americans and a future, necessary call for impeachment will be go unanswered. Both parties need to get a grip and find a better avenue for voicing their opposition.

Beware of Ransomware

2010-01-30T14:52:00.000-06:00

Spam is always annoying and makes us waste time cleaning out email boxes. Unfortunately, there seems to be a rise in the use of a malicious extortion scheme as of late. According to MSNBC, a more aggressive ransomware has emerged, literally seizing a person's PC until they pay to get use of it back. See a video about how it works below...

Rogueware with new Ransomware Technology™ from Panda Security on Vimeo.

Most of these schemes ask for payments in the range of $50 - $89 for a fake "protection" program, and has been deemed as criminal by authorities.

The Terminator's take...keep your eyes open, and don't fall for an extortion scheme! Keep your computer protected and never follow a link you don't trust!

Dems Suddenly Interested in Obama Birth Certificate?

2010-01-30T14:35:00.000-06:00

Ok...I love this idea, and I think the Dems are on the right track in identifying which Republicans are hiding the fact that they are part of the more conservative "Tea Party" movement. Ever since the Tea Party began its grassroots campaign, it is suspected that many Republicans either in office or pursuing office secretly agree with the party's platform.

Once again, Wingnut Daily has offered this information in an attempt to demonize the Dems, but it's given me something to write about instead. Since some Republicans agree with the Tea Party (described as extremists by the Democratic leadership), I think it's important to make them go on the record with their beliefs. To that end, Democrats have produced a checklist of questions to ask their opponents...

Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen?

Do you think the 10th Amendment bars Congress from issuing regulations like minimum health care coverage standards?

Do you think programs like Social Security and Medicare represent socialism and should never have been created in the first place?

Do you think President Obama is a socialist?

Do you think America should return to a gold standard?
The memo instructs that if a GOP candidate says no, make his or her "primary opponent or conservative activists know it."

The Terminator's take...this is ingenious!! The strategy is fabulous because the Republican giving the answers will face pressure from both sides regardless of their response. If the timing is right, it could be very effective!

Was Iraq Really About Oil?

2010-01-30T14:15:00.000-06:00

To start, let me be clear in saying that I support our troops and the work they do on behalf of our country. However, I don't always support the cause they are sent to fight. Specifically, I believe that our troops were sent into Iraq for two reasons. First, I believe that Bush wanted Saddam's head, and second...there IS an abundance of oil available in Iraq.

Ironically, I'm getting information on the latter from my favorite wingnut site, World Net Daily. Take a look at this quote...

"Within the next few years, Iraq is positioned to rival Saudi Arabia by bringing its oil production to 11 million barrels a day,"

"Scientists for the U.S. Geological Survey have also suggested Venezuela's oil reserves may double the reserves in Saudi Arabia."

As you can see, the same article discusses Venezuela as another major oil source, prompting me to wonder if Chavez will soon be accused of harboring terrorists or developing WMDs. After all, isn't that the argument used by the Bush administration to plunge our troops into a war that has lasted for almost 7 years and killed more Americans than the attacks on 9/11?

The Terminator's take...I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but this information really raises my eyebrows. While I agree that Saddam was a blight on humanity, I wonder if his capture and execution was simply a means to an end, having little or nothing to do with the actual terrorist threat on our country. Just one Terminator's opinion.

Orrin Hatch to Include BCS as Federal Issue

2010-01-30T14:01:00.000-06:00

Let's see...health care, the economy, Haiti and the Bowl Championship Series? Would you consider the BCS as a major issue facing the nation and in need of federal intervention? Apparently, that's what Orrin Hatch (R) from Utah wants. That's right, folks...a Republican is asking for the Justice department to investigate anti-trust allegations related to the way in which the college football postseason is played.

The Terminator's take...aren't Republicans supposed to be against "big government" or unnecessary government influence on privatized matters? I suppose the fact that Utah (Hatch's home state) went undefeated last year and wasn't given a chance to play for the championship had nothing to with his decision to ask Obama to intervene.

*insert sarcastic sigh here*

Two thoughts...First, Republicans need to own up to their various special interests and earmarks. If this isn't proof positive that some in Congress have their priorities a little screwed up, then I don't know what is. Second, while I agree the BCS has its flaws I don't think it warrants the help of the President or the Justice department. Let the collegiate system fix itself, at the behest of the millions of fans and players who will continue to scream until it does get fixed!

"Watchdog" Shows She's Out of Touch

2010-01-29T16:15:00.000-06:00

I've said it before...I love it when the fundies make my job easy! This little gem is a perfect example. Allow me to introduce Elaine Donnelly, president of The Center for Military Readiness and self-appointed political watchdog. Here's a snippet of her remarks regarding Obama being "out of touch" when it comes to DADT...

"First of all, there is no big push for gays in the military. For him to say 'finally repeal this law on gays in the military,' he's really out of touch," she notes. "Secondly, he seems to be looking at this issue as if it has to do with civil rights. The law clearly states that there is no constitutional right to be in the armed forces."

Where to begin...let's start with Ms. Donnelly's (wait...let's call her Dingbat Donnelly) initial statement. Does Dingbat Donnelly read any newspapers or watch any news programs? Since 1993, HRC and other equal rights organizations have been screaming about this piece of junk legislation. It seems to me that the Dingbat is the one who is out of touch!

The Dingbat also seems confused about the difference between civil rights and constitutional issues surrounding the right to serve in the military. She is correct (Oh, how it pains me to say so), that there is no constitutional right for any American regarding service in the military. Obviously, certain physical requirements are in place, and not every citizen who wants to serve will be able to do so. However, being homosexual does not make a person unable to serve. This is very, very similar to the state of our armed services prior to integration. African Americans were not allowed to serve simply because of their skin color. Following the same logic, homosexuals who are capable of meeting the physical and mental requirements for serving in the military should be granted that opportunity.

The Terminator's take...Dingbats, wing-nuts and fundies don't like to engage in talk of logic, so of course my logical argument will be readily dismissed. If they can't understand it, they can't fight it...so their response is to make sure you're afraid of it. Don't fall for it, folks!

Tea Party...The Next Republican Revolution?

2010-01-29T15:39:00.000-06:00

Remember the mid-term election of 1994? Bill Clinton was stunned when Newt Gingrinch and company moved into Washington after a huge sweep of Republican victories. Since Scott Brown's victory in Massachusettes, some think the "Tea Party" is now poised to pull off another massive takeover in November.

Yes, those lovable little wing-nuts over at World News Daily are talking about a huge upset in the making. With the intriguing addition of Sarah Palin to their list of Tea Party headliners, are starting to be more and more convinced that the next Republican Revolution is in their sight.

The Terminator's take...Obama made a good point that probably went in one Republican ear and out the other. He mentioned that there was no leadership in just saying, "No," for the sake of disagreeing. If the Tea Party does manage to pull off an upset in November, I think there will be a stalemate. When that happens, no one wins.

State of the Union...Part 3

2010-01-29T15:13:00.000-06:00

As you might have expected, our friend Peter LaBarbera has latched on to the idea of repealing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) policy in the military. Babs and his group of homophobic fundies have begun their campaign to make all homesexuals look like sex-crazed rapists.

Because there was a batch of gay porn involving members of the military, all homosexuals are, of course, immoral beings who are unworthy of life and its liberties. Funny thing is, there is also a problem with straight porn in the military. I suppose that since men and women bunk separately, none of them are in any way influenced by or act upon the porn they may run across...right? Right, that I'll believe, LOL.

The Terminator's take...DADT was and is a ridiculous piece of legislation. If members of the miliatry don't have to "see" their gay commrades, then I suppose they don't exist. It reminds me of my cat...the one who will hide under the bed, leaving her rear end out for all to see. She figures if she can't see me...I can't see her. The same priciple applies here.

Babs is running one of his usual scare campaigns, trying to make all of us believe that homosexuals are evil and will corrupt anything they are able to participate in. Well, Babs...believe it or not, there are already gays in the military and despite that fact, the entire military structure hasn't collapsed! Imagine that!!

State of the Union Aftermath...Part 2

2010-01-29T14:41:00.005-06:00

As promised, part 2 of my SOTU deals with the President's comments to the Supreme Court. I don't know how many of you saw it, but Justice Alito had his own, "You Lie," moment during Obama's speech. Take a look at the video...

The Terminator's take...Alito had two reasons for his reaction.

First, Obama is now among only a handful of Presidents to confront the Supreme Court in the context of the State of the Union address. Jefferson, Roosevelt and Reagan are the only other Presidents who have acted similarly. That probably put Alito and the other Supremes on edge.

Second, while Obama was correct in mentioning the court's decision regarding individual Americans and domestic groups or organizations, he incorrectly mentioned foreign entities. The court allowed unlimited spending in its Citizens United vs. FEC decision...as an extension of First Amendment free speech rights... but has yet to rule on spending rules regarding foreign entities.

Honestly, both Obama and Alito were somewhat out of line, but the whole thing seemed a little overblown to me...certainly not like Joe Wilson's, "You lie," outburst.

Next topic...Don't Ask, Don't Tell

State of the Union Aftermath...Part 1

2010-01-29T13:12:00.000-06:00

Obama's speech last night has ignited a whirlwind of discussion on the blogosphere, and the fundies are having a field day. Since there are a few key issues that Obama highlighted that seem to be sparking the biggest firestorms, I've decided to break them up over the course of a few posts.

For today's post, I'll focus on the expected, but still interesting shift in focus for the administration. Up until the election of Scott Brown to Kennedy's senate seat (causing the loss of the so-called "super majority"), the focus of the political rhetoric was health care. We've all seen how that blew up in Obama's face, especially on the issue of transparency. Last night, it was as if Obama was trying to make us believe that the economy (namely creating jobs and reducing taxes) had been the focus all along and that he just couldn't understand why no one would cooperate with him.

The Terminator's take...the famous campaign phrase, "It's the economy, stupid," won't work twice, especially when anyone who's paid attention knows that the legislative focus has been health care. Smoke and mirrors won't work, Mr. Obama. You haven't tricked me, and you haven't tricked the rest of America.

Sorry, all those Obama fans out there...I'm not knocking him completely, I just don't like misdirection period, regardless of who it comes from.

Next topic...Obama vs. the Supremes and Alito's "that's not true" comment.

Fundies Criticize the New York Times

2010-01-27T16:34:00.000-06:00

Ok, I realize that my title probably states the obvious...but I just couldn't pass up this one. It seems that some of those lovable little wingnuts over at Americans for Truth are wondering why the Times is denouncing the Ugandan policies regarding homosexuality. Specifically, they are asking what gives the United States the right to lecture another country on its policies.

Whatever your stance, homosexuality isn't the bigger issue in this article...even if Peter LaBarbera and his cronies would like for you to think otherwise. No, the bigger question is, does the United States have the right to lecture? Think about it before you answer...think about the wars we're fighting, the leaders we've promoted, the POLICIES we've supported or denounced in the past.

I'm not proposing an answer one way or the other, but I find it ironic that some of the biggest "Bush-backers" have the audacity to gripe about the US lecturing other countries. It just seems to me that the Fundies are all for lectures...if they serve their personal beliefs and agendas.

Computers in the Classroom

2010-01-21T19:21:00.000-06:00

I stumbled upon this little blog post (courtesy of the American Family Association),

"The fact of the matter is more computers in classrooms won't help students
master the basic skills of reading, writing and math. There is already such a
lack of understanding in these basic subjects that it's rather pointless to
introduce computers into a classroom. A computer won't teach a kid how to do
algebra or how to convey his thoughts through writing. If anything, computers
hinder the learning process in school. Considering the sorry, and steadily
declining, state of public education, taxpayer money should be used for better
and more effective projects."

From an educational standpoint, this statement is absolutely ridiculous! I won't bore you with statistics and such, but I will give you a short explanation about learning styles. Every individual learns in a certain way. Some are visual learners and thrive in an environment full of diagrams, drawings, etc. Others are audio learners and thrive in an environment where concepts are explained verbally. Still others are tactile learners and thrive in an environment where they are able to learn by "doing." Many of us, however, rely on a combination of these learning styles.

Using computers in the classroom correctly allows concepts to be conveyed through all of the above mentioned learning styles. The basic skills the writer addressed are, in fact, often better conveyed through the audio/visual/tactile software that is available now. Students who might have otherwise fallen by the wayside are offered another avenue of learning.

The Terminator's take...This writer is more concerned with placing blame and ranting about tax dollars than taking the time to examine the research behind using computers in classroom settings. Do your homework before you start ranting...otherwise, you just look idiotic.

Teachers Warned Against Being "Heterosexist"

2010-01-21T19:19:00.001-06:00

I have to start this by explaining the source of this story. World Net Daily is a conservative (ok...more like "ultra-conservative") organization that has a news website. I affectionately refer to them as my favorite little "wing-nuts," because some of their issues are, well...really "out there."

Take, for example, their objection to the Texas Education Agency's stipulation that...

"teachers and administrators must be held accountable for practices deemed to be
racist, sexist, heterosexist, classist, or in any other way discriminatory."

Can you guess which word those adorable little wing-nuts objected to? If you answered, "heterosexist," you're right! The irony is that 40 years ago they'd have objected against the word "racist," yet now that they've removed their white sheets, they've focused their discriminatory actions toward homosexuals.

The fact is, homosexuals are living among our communities. Just as Americans feared sharing their rights, space, etc. with African Americans, the hateful few now fear allowing loving couples to share the same rights they enjoy. Further, allowing homosexuals to share marriage rights does not in any way diminish the existing or future heterosexual marriages.

Plain and simple...teachers, leaders, etc. should refrain from making derogatory or inflammatory comments when interacting with our children. The wing-nuts need to realize that their constant messages of intolerance and hate are not constructive and serve only to create further division and conflict.

Concerned Women of America Focus on Planned Parenthood

2010-01-21T19:16:00.000-06:00

I'm always amused when the Concerned Women of America rant and rave...especially since many of their article writers and members are actually men! This most recent event caught my attention because it concerned my community and occurred amidst the celebration of MLK day and the sorrow of the tragedy in Haiti.

Here's the story...A new Planned Parenthood building is being constructed in Houston. It is the second largest of its kind, and is located near downtown. Crowds gathered to protest, trying to show racial unity by chanting, "Black, brown and white...we are pro-life!"

The Terminator's take? Get a grip!! Had the very concerned women done their research, they would know that Planned Parenthood doesn't necessarily equal abortion. The organization offers several services to help women in need. That said, I think the concerned women could have chosen to rally support for the Haitians who are still greatly in need of our support. The fact that they chose to ignore the thousands upon thousands of dead and injured in Haiti to protest an organization that supports life tells me that their priortities are completely upside-down. Another point of interest is that they attempted to use MLK's day to put forth an image of unity when it's obvious that they seem to discriminate against any woman who seeks help from Planned Parenthood. Honestly, either you are tolerant and accepting, or you're not...it's just that simple.

Concerned Women of America...shame on you for misusing Martin Luther King Jr.'s name and ignoring the greater tragedy in Haiti!

LaBabera Overly Interested in "Aberrant" Sex

2009-11-17T17:58:00.001-06:00

Our old friend Peter LaBarbera ("Babs") is on a rampage once again, referring to HRC and equal rights advocates as "aberrant-sex activists." Further, he cites the HRC's material as proof that anyone who disagrees with him is involved in some widespread conspiracy to corrupt biblical principles.

*Take a second to look at what the HRC developed, and notice the many references to remaining calm when faced with opposition.

First, when I consider the heterosexual couples I know, I don't automatically focus on their sexual behavior. Honestly folks, who does that? Unless it's brought up in a private conversation, who really knows what goes on in the bedrooms of heterosexual couples? That being said, why is it that Babs automatically links the phrase, "aberrant-sex" with anyone who is homosexual? It seems to me that Babs is far too interested in the deeply personal sex lives of other individuals.

I could go on for quite a while about this subject, but I'll sum it up in this brief statement: We don't care what anyone else does in their bedrooms or who they do it with! Equal rights means just that...all people should have the EQUAL opportunity to love who they love and provide for them using the same benefits and protections in place for heterosexual, married couples.

Second, take a look at the mention of the organization's "pray-in" as a show of civil disobedience in protest of the newly signed hate crimes legislation.

"On October 28, President Barack Obama signed into law a measure extending the
federal hate crimes statute to include so-called sexual orientation. The
ministers believe this will criminalize all criticism of homosexual behavior,
including that contained in the Bible.
To test this belief and protest a
clear violation of First Amendment freedom of speech and religion, various
clergy will preach short sermons and read passages from the Bible regarding
homosexual behavior. Like Dr. Martin Luther King and the Sixties Civil Rights
movement, they will engage in civil disobedience to protest injustice."

Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement? Are they serious? African Americans were not equal members of society before the work, and, might I mention, the blood spilled by the brave activists who took a stand and fought. How dare you, Mr. LaBarbera, put yourself in the same category as those who fought, suffered humiliation and died for the equal rights enjoyed by white Americans. Having a philosophical difference with others is NOT the same thing as being oppressed by a society as a whole. If anything, the work of the HRC is closer to that of the civil rights movement, because committed homosexual couples aren't allowed to provide for their families or even call themselves "married" because Babs and those like him feel threatened.

Shame on you, Babs.

From Pink Slips to Rainbow Slips...

2009-11-12T23:43:00.005-06:00

Recently Janet Folger, one of my favorite fundies, started a campaign to get constituents to send "pink slips" to their senators and congressmen. In short, these cute little notes are aimed at getting members of congress to vote against various pieces of legislation, namely anything having to do with hate crimes. She uses the usual rhetoric about how passing any hate crimes legislation would most certainly doom all members of the clergy to prison sentences. Basically, it's your usual fundie message claiming that the sky is indeed falling. What I find amazing, other than the fact that Ms. Folger thinks any hate crime legislation is evil, is that she's charging people to have these pink slips sent to the members of congress! I suppose her organization has fallen on hard times if she's requiring her supporters to pay to join her little grassroots action. Well, LGBT people of America...we can make a little grassroots noise of our own!

Here's what I propose...

Let's get as many people as possible to send "rainbow slips" to members of congress. Unlike Ms. Folger and her organization, we won't charge for you to participate. Simply copy my design...alter it some, if you wish, and send it to your representatives or to the entire congressional body.

Rep./Senator Smith
By receiving this rainbow
slip, you are on notice that your constituents demand your vote in our
favor on the following issues:

* The protection of every citizen’s
civil rights by passing hate crime legislation.

* Same-sex marriage with
equal recognition and rights as traditional marriages.

Signed: ____________________________________

Send this to your friends, and report back here in the comments section so we can all see our progress. Remember, if you sit quietly and do nothing, the status quo will remain. Be proud, be loud, and don't let the fundies get in the way of our civil rights!

Fox News Suffering An Identity Crisis?

2009-10-22T19:07:00.003-05:00

You know it's a slow news day when the fundies are debating the legitimacy of a cable news network. If you haven't heard already, Obama's aides have been in an ongoing feud with the network, and have released several statements to that effect. What has the fundies all riled up now? Obama himself gave an interview in which he said,

"I think what our advisers have simply said is that we are going to take media
as it comes," Obama told NBC's Savannah Guthrie. "And if media is operating
basically as a talk radio format then that's one thing, and if it's operating as
a news outlet that's another. But it's not something I'm losing sleep over."

In another discussion, Senior Advisor David Axelrod was quoted as saying,

"(Fox is) not really a news station."

I've never been a huge fan of Fox News, in fact...between Sean "I'll Cut Off Anyone Who Disagrees With Me" Hannity and Bill "I'm the Ultimate Authority on Everything" O'Reilly, I find watching the network positively nauseating. And, yes, several of their "talking heads" have their own radio programs in addition to their appearances on the network. I suppose the question is...SO WHAT??!! CNN and MSNBC also have hosts who are both on television and on the airwaves...either through radio or podcasts. Do you hear the fundies mentioning anything about them? The answer, of course, is "no" because the fundies aren't having an illicit affair with either of those networks.

As usual, the wingnuts are running to the defense of their beloved mistress because those evil, liberal bastards are being big bullies. How dare they disagree with the almighty, ever truthful and forthright wingnuts? (Insert incredibly sarcastic sigh here)

In my not so humble opinion, the fundies are at such a loss for things to rant and rave about, they're forced to report on the obvious! Oh well, tomorrow they'll be upset because someone at the White House mentioned that a Fox News correspondent wore mismatched socks. I'm with Obama on this one...I'm not losing any sleep over it!

Campbell's or Progresso? A Decision Made Easier

2009-01-14T15:53:00.002-06:00

I'm sure you've seen the commercials lately comparing the nutritional value and taste preferences between Progresso soups and Campbell's soups. Each commercial dangles one or more reasons why we should choose one soup over the other, but the American Family Association has probably given us a reason to choose Campbell's (and, by extension, Swanson products) over the Progresso options.

Placed prominently on their homepage today (I absolutely love it when they make it so easy, lol), is one of their infamous "action alerts" challenging all those who cherish "traditional" families to boycott Campbell's and their "Labels For Education" because the company advertises in The Advocate.

AFA went on to explain...

Many people aren't aware that when their school participates in Campbell's
"Labels for Education" program they are supporting a company that has openly
come out in support of homosexual marriage, and it has no intentions of stopping
that support.
"Labels for Education" provides equipment for schools in
exchange for proofs of purchase from the family of Campbell's brands.
Many
of the schools that participate don't know that Campbell's supports the
homosexual publication The Advocate with advertising. The Advocate is a leading
promoter of same-sex marriage.
AFA asked Campbell's to be neutral in the
culture war. Campbell's refused and said it would continue to support The
Advocate. The Media Daily News reported that a Campbell spokesman was quoted as
saying: "Our plans for the Swanson brand [a division of Campbell's] include
additional placements in The Advocate." To show their commitment to same-sex
marriage, Campbell's sought out and featured two
"married" lesbians and their son in one of the ads.

That's right...not only is Campbell's advertising in one of the leading LGBT publications, but they're actually seeking out homosexuals and their families to be featured in their ads! (Insert sarcastic gasp here)

It seems to me that the director, Mr. Wildmon, has shot himself (and, by extension, his argument) in the foot by pointing out that Campbell's was interested in showcasing examples of successful homosexual unions and their resulting families. Included in their alert is a link to the ad specifically mentioned, and I found it to be very warm and charming. Of course, the AFA will say I'm biased and on some level they'd be right...but isn't it comforting to see images of loving families? Go ahead...call me biased, but I'm in favor of any advertisements that promote the concept of loving families regardless of their individual components. I suppose this is just another example of the AFA's endless discrimination against anything that isn't palatable to them.

So...the next time you're on the soup aisle...reach for those cans of Campbell's and Swanson products and say, "Take that!" to Mr. Wildmon.

Did You Miss Me? I'll Be Back Soon

2008-12-17T15:46:00.001-06:00

I've taken a long break in order to finish up my first writing project, so I will be back to posting as much sarcasm as possible very soon!

Westboro Raps?

2007-09-04T10:22:00.000-05:00

Just when I thought the nuts over at Westboro Baptist couldn't get any nuttier, they come out with this delightful little gem...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZujlW3xQiQ

Sorry for the link, but my continuing battle with Youtube's 'post to blog' option is still giving me trouble. I would comment on the video a little further, but I think it speaks for itself...hatred knows no bounds.

Hillary on Ellen...Dances Around Gay Marriage Question

2007-09-04T10:00:00.000-05:00

For my readers who are fans of Hillary, I apologize for what I'm about to say. It's no secret that I'm not a Hillary fan, but this just proves my point about her constant waffling...even to the extent of contradicting what has been one of her political mainstays...federalizing various issues so as to take them out of the hands of individual states.

First, watch the Youtube video of Ellen's interview with Hillary...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3huRVrckY8

Now, I could rightfully rant about Hillary's idea of what amounts to a 'separate but equal' system of civil unions for gay couples, but the comment that stands out the most to me is that she believes this is an issue that should be left for the states to decide. Not only did she dodge the root of Ellen's question, but she contradicted some of her well known political ideals...again.

Remember her healthcare solution from 1994? The core of her proposal, and current healthcare proposals as well, is that we should federalize the entire healthcare system. Whether you agree with that or not, it's a prime example of how Hillary constantly sends homosexuals to the back of the bus...so to speak. Apparently, it's perfectly acceptable to provide healthcare for all Americans, but it's not acceptable to do the equivalent regarding gay marriage.

The bottom line is that the idea of civil unions is 'safe' and using the word 'marriage' in conjunction with the word gay would produce an impenetrable barrier to the White House. By making the statement that this is an issue for the states to decide, Hillary has adopted a blatant 'hands-off' stance...something that is in direct contradiction to her other campaign promises and political ideals. She's always held the idea that social issues were best handled at the federal level, so why not this one? The answer...cowardice, plain and simple.

Taking Another Break

2007-08-30T11:08:00.000-05:00

Labor Day Weekend is upon us, and I've got a full calendar starting tomorrow. I'll have more sarcastic posts starting Tuesday. Until then, have a great holiday!

Ft.Lauderdale Mayor Off Tourism Board

2007-08-30T08:53:00.000-05:00

Jim Naugle, the embattled mayor of Ft. Lauderdale, FL who has not only suggested installing "robo-toilets" throughout the city, but has also made several public statements which are incredibly discriminatory toward the LGBT community, has lost his seat on the tourism board. According to the local Sun-Sentinal, Broward County commissioners were concerned that Naugle's actions would harm the tourism industry...a multibillion-dollar asset to the county...and that he'd ignored warnings from commissioners about his actions. The Sentinal reported...

"Since Naugle made his initial allegations about rampant gay sex in public
restrooms nearly two months ago, the Greater Fort Lauderdale Convention &
Visitors Bureau has been deluged with hundreds of angry e-mails from tourists.
Some said they had canceled vacations, while others threatened to go
elsewhere.

A gay-oriented convention that was to draw 200 attendees this fall is on
hold. A group that plans black family reunions has voiced concern about whether
the mayor was sending a message of intolerance. Bookings of college and
high-school sporting events is also down compared to last year."

And how did Naugle respond to the fact that groups other than LGBT affiliated organizations were voicing their displeasure over his comments and actions? Take a look...

"Naugle was unbowed by the county's rebuke and said commissioners removed
him because they "feared a very vocal minority." He questioned why no
commissioner had talked to him beforehand to hear why he has done what he's
done.

Sometimes the easiest thing to do when you don't want to hear something is
to shoot the messenger, but that doesn't mean that there is not a problem out
there that needs to be addressed," Naugle said.

So now he's a victim? Give me a break. This guy is so obsessed with his homophobic ideals that he refuses to see how his actions have affected the economy of the community he is supposed to serve. County Commissioner Stacey Ritter put it best...

"I had hoped that this would die on its own, but Mayor Naugle continues to
push his own agenda and that is having an increasing impact on our community,"
said County Commissioner Stacy Ritter, who proposed removing him. "He has
continued to escalate his rhetoric, and we cannot be silent."

I half expect Naugle to shoot back by reiterating that homosexuals are the only ones with an "agenda," but he's put the nails in his own coffin with this little crusade of his. I sincerely hope the Ft. Lauderdale voters will take steps to either censure or remove Naugle entirely and replace him with someone who truly reflects the gay-friendly atmosphere that the community has worked so hard to establish. I think the closing comment another Commissioner says it all...

"Hate is something that is simply unacceptable and now has become costly to
the county as well," Commissioner Diana Wasserman-Rubin said.

I doubt Naugle will ever agree, but this is one step in a positive direction for both the Ft. Lauderdale community and the LGBT community as a whole.

Babs Not Welcome At Holiday Inn

2007-08-29T10:33:00.001-05:00

Peter LaBarbera's organization (Americans For Truth About Homosexuality) had booked a fundraising convention at a Chicago area Holiday Inn, but has since been told they are no longer welcome. Why? The hotel manager feared protests by what Babs calls pro-gay groups.

In an audio interview with Babs, Matt Barber of Concerned Women For America blew the entire situation out of proportion by making claims that the hotel was being anti-Christian by not allowing the group to convene at their establishment.

First of all, the hotel and its corporate officials do have the right to refuse service to anyone. Had this hotel refused service to HRC, PFLAG or any other group Babs despises, he'd be celebrating it on his site...and he knows it.

Second, Pete is known for being abrasive...if not abusive...toward anyone who disagrees with him. Any opponent is instantly denigrated in what I would deem a vicious manner. No wonder the hotel was worried about protests and the effect they might have on their other guests and future business.

Finally, perhaps Babs will come away from this situation with some understanding of what gay and lesbian couples go through. I highly doubt it, because his arrogance is so profound that I doubt anything...even experiencing what discrimination others endure on a regular basis...will be able to penetrate his thick skull.

Listen to the interview at your own risk, lol...it made me sick to my stomach.

Larry Craig This And That

2007-08-29T10:21:00.000-05:00

I started out with one post to follow up on yesterday's post, but I found so many examples of ridiculousness that I decided to put together some brief comments here.

** This is nothing more than despicable and cowardly behavior on the part of the folks over at WingNutDaily. Without giving any real comment, the site posted a headline today and linked to an article from the Idaho Statesman in what appears to be an effort to discredit the columnist who wrote the articles documenting the events surrounding Senator Larry Craig...

Columnist who exposed Craig backs 'gay' marriage 'Chance
to make a once-and-for-all statement that we are broad-minded folk' --Idaho
Statesman

I suppose that if you support gay marriage it doesn't matter how many police reports and other credible sources you can produce. In the eyes of the fundies, support of gay marriage instantly damages your journalistic integrity and credibility. Pathetic.

** The Idaho Values Alliance has called for Craig's resignation...no real surprise there, but I had to laugh at this part of their statement...

"The Judeo-Christian tradition says that the standard for identifying the
truth is that “by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact is confirmed.”
The senator’s guilty plea, when added to the officer’s testimony, satisfies the
biblical standard for confirming the essential truth of what happened, and
unless the senator can provide a compelling and convincing explanation for his
plea, we will need to regretfully accept that the fact of his behavior has been
established. It seems unlikely that he can “unring the bell” his guilty plea has
sounded."

At least this bunch of wingnuts is using their biblical "standards" on one of their own since they are so fond of bashing the rest of us over the head with them, but it baffles me that they think they needed some biblical yardstick to confirm this one.

** Mitt Romney very quickly distanced himself from Craig, and it seems the White House is doing the same. The strange thing is that while statements from Romney, McCain, Huckabee and others are strongly worded, the White House spokesperson made this statement...

"We're disappointed in what's going on. It's a matter for the senator and
the Senate Republican leadership to address," deputy White House press secretary
Scott Stanzel said.

We hope that it will be resolved quickly, as that would be in the best
interests of the Senate and the people of Idaho," Stanzel said.

Is it just me, or does it sound like the Chimperor doesn't want to touch this story with a ten foot pole? This is a matter for the legislative branch of the government to handle (not that that's ever stopped Bush from sticking his nose where it doesn't belong), but the statement from the White House made it look like Bush was much more upset about potentially losing yet another Republican vote in the senate.

Another Ignorant Rant From Matt Barber

2007-08-28T10:26:00.001-05:00

Another day, another bleating rant from the resident concerned "woman" Matt Barber. This time, Matt has gone after an Illinois school district over a summer reading list for 8th graders and even goes so far as to list examples of what he deems to be objectionable content from one of the books. Before giving that list, though, he opened by saying...

"Prairie Junior High School’s required reading list for rising 8th graders
gave children six books to choose from over the summer. Parents have complained
that three of the six books contain adult content which is highly
age-inappropriate. Those complaints, however, have fallen on deaf ears. At a
recent school board meeting, school board members said they intend to continue
assigning the books. The following are excerpts from just a handful of the many
salacious passages found in one of the books, Fat Kid Rules the World, by K. L.
Going:"

So, from the outset, Matt has acknowledged that the students were given a list of books from which to choose...argument hole number one. Unless someone was holding a gun to the heads of these students and their parents, it seems that other choices were made available.

Notice also that the objectionable passages Matt printed were from ONE of the SIX books on the list of choices for the students...argument hole number two. It appears that this book wasn't forced on anyone, regardless of what Matt said next...

"To add insult to injury, the school didn’t even have the courtesy to warn
these kids — or their parents — about the adult content within the assigned
reading. And parents are understandably furious. If one of my daughters came to
me at twelve having been assigned this smut, I’d be ticked-off too."

Okay, parents do have the responsibility to be involved in the education of their children, and these parents should have made it a priority to investigate these book choices and guide their children accordingly. Argument hole number three...as Matt pointed out, the students had a choice and none of the six books were specifically "assigned" no matter how much he'd like it to appear that way.

Now, with three holes in his ridiculous argument, let's look at the cute turn Matt makes with this delightful little story. He starts with the following...

"I telephoned Robert Berger, superintendent of schools for District 126,
fully expecting him to assure me that this foolishness would be remedied. But
instead, his response was defiant, defensive and arrogant."

It's a distinct possibility, given Matt's usual tone and attitude toward anyone who disagrees with him, that the conversation with Mr. Berger began with a similarly defiant, defensive and arrogant, and I wouldn't fault Mr. Berger for responding the way he did. I do find it interesting that while Matt provided explicit details about the one offensive book, he didn't do the same regarding his conversation with this superintendent. Only a couple of comments were mentioned in what was, presumably, a much more involved discussion..argument hole number four.

The real axis, if you will, of Matt's argument becomes very clear with these statements...

"Unfortunately the actions of District 126 are symptomatic of a
metastasizing moral malady within our larger system of public education. Kids in
public schools across the country are constantly inundated with material which
promotes profanity, homosexuality, promiscuity and abortion.

The Agenda is pushed and the curriculum set by leftist groups like the
National Education Association (NEA), the ACLU and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight
Education Network (GLSEN). Even the American Library Association (ALA) gave Fat
Kids its “Michael L. Printz Award for Excellence in Young Adult Literature.” The
book also received a rave review from America’s largest homosexual activist
literary organization, Lambda Literary Foundation.
By constantly lowering
the bar on decency, educators are intentionally playing a game of ideological
limbo with our children’s moral well-being as they seek to create little moral
relativists in their own iconoclastic self-image. And they’re robbing kids of
great reading like Oliver Twist, Treasure Island and many others in the
process."

And there you have it, folks...it's the homosexuals who are forcing these poor, impressionable children to read the book Matt keeps blathering about. I will give Matt points for his clever use of alliteration with his, "metastasizing moral malady," comment, but the rest of his bleating is simply that...bleating. For the record, the Printz Award is one of the biggest and most prestigious children's literature prizes and is given, as Matt said, by the American Library Association. Unfortunately, Fat Kid Rules the World didn't win the award, but was one of the honored books for the year 2004...argument hole number five.

As usual, Matt has tried to spin this situation and has succeeded in insulting the parental intelligence of the students in the district in question, assumed that the traditional classic reading choices are being held hostage somewhere, gave false information regarding the one book that seemed to bother him the most and blamed everything on that ever elusive homosexual agenda.

With five glaring holes in your argument Matt...you'd do good to do a little more homework before posting your purposely inflammatory garbage.

Another Case of Convenient Dementia?

2007-08-28T09:34:00.000-05:00

The more I've seen on the news and read online, the more I'm convinced that these elected officials who've been caught in these types of acts are suffering from what I'm dubbing convenient dementia. This time it's Republican Senator Larry Craig who's been stricken with this horrible disease. According to a report from The IdahoStatesman, a news source from his home state, Craig was arrested on June 11th in a Minnesota airport men's room for allegedly soliciting sex from an undercover officer. The details of that arrest can be found here.

Since an arrest was made, Craig was required to appear in court...an event that occurred earlier this month. Here's what the Statesman reported...

"News about the June 11 arrest at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International
Airport was reported on Roll Call's Web site Monday. According to police and
court records obtained by Roll Call, Craig pleaded guilty Aug. 8 to
misdemeanor disorderly conduct in Hennepin County District Court. He paid $575
in fines and fees. A 10-day jail sentence was suspended and Craig received one
year's unsupervised probation.

Craig on Monday denied any misconduct. "At the time of this incident,
I complained to the police that they were misconstruing my
actions," he said in a written statement. "I was not involved in any
inappropriate conduct. I should have had the advice of counsel in resolving this
matter. In hindsight, I should not have pled guilty. I was trying to handle this
matter myself quickly and expeditiously."

Craig, through his staff, declined to answer questions."

Of course he declined to answer questions, because the first one would be why in the world would a longstanding Senator go into court and plead guilty without either having a lawyer with him or, at the very least, consulting one before heading into court? The answer is very simple...he was guilty and he was hoping not to handle the "matter" as he described, but hoping it would just go away.

Since the story broke yesterday, Craig has decided to take the dementia route by trying to make it look like he wasn't thinking clearly enough to do what anyone would do if arrested...hire an attorney. Here's the interesting twist I know you're waiting for...

"Craig, 62, was elected to Congress in 1980. Should he win re-election in
2008 and complete his term, he would be the longest-serving Idahoan ever in
Congress. His record includes a series of votes against gay rights and his
support of a 2006 amendment to the Idaho Constitution that bars gay marriage and
civil unions."

He has to claim that everything was misconstrued and that he shouldn't have gone to court without an attorney because his entire political life has an anti-gay record. The Statesman article has links and references to other instances where Craig's behavior has come into question, but this is just another example of convenient dementia...something more and more politicians seem to be catching. Maybe someone should check the water in Washington or, better yet, maybe these guys should just start telling the truth.

Would You Like A Little Cheese With That Whine, Boys?

2007-08-27T10:24:00.000-05:00

You know, I sat down this morning and, inevitably, landed on Peter LaBarbera's site (Americans for Truth) only to read what is probably one of the most insidious headlines I've seen in a while.
Referring to last week's article by talk radio host Kevin McCullough, Babs implored his fellow hatemongers...I mean, loyal readers...to support the idea that bloggers who happen to be gay are not only angry but lie all the time. He didn't even have the sense to change McCullough's original headline or, perhaps, he's just that unimaginative...who knows...but while the words, "Why Do Angry Gay Bloggers Always Lie," were there, the proof of those "lies" were nonexistent. Babs starts out...as usual...with the focus on himself...

"As one who has been on the receiving end of too many online “gay” lies to
count, I can sympathize with Kevin McCullough – one of the few radio
conservatives nationwide who doesn’t downplay the homosexual issue. (And there
are some pretty big names in conservative radio who do by going ‘PC’ on
this issue with their silence … so support
Kevin.)"

Awwww, poor little hate-filled fundies! For all the anti-gay comments, campaigns and other efforts Pete has made and been involved in, I find it absolutely incredible...if not a bit nauseating...that he would have the audacity to complain about any legitimate rebuttal to his lame arguments, relegating them to the level of "online 'gay' lies." And, yes, I'm still wondering what's with the damn quotes around the word gay.

The only thing I could find in both articles (which are posted on AFT's site and can be read using the first link I gave in this post) that refers to a "lie" is the same, tired argument that fundies have been making all along...their belief that a person's sexual orientation is a choice and not a biological predetermination. I suppose the idea here is that if you don't agree with the fundies, you're a liar...plain and simple.

In his article, McCullough laments the name-calling he's endured...

"NGBlog
[WARNING: NGBlog has a hard time making his point without cussing–Ed.] and OutsideTheTent
have had me in their sights for sometime.

And when the towering intellects that they both are come up short
against an actual point of substance the best they can do is call me stupid, or
poopy pants, or whatever brilliant turn of phrase pops into their skull.

They are so desperate to make me appear stupid they slow down the video of me discussing the
Mary Cheney pregnancy on CNN to the one frame where in the middle of
speaking I appear half-inebriated. [See an AFTAH post on the Mary Cheney
baby story HERE.]

Classy…

They also lie a lot… the lying liars they
are."

The lying liars they are? Honestly, you'd think that a popular conservative talk radio host could do better than that! I won't stoop to any silly name-calling, but I will say that we do have an actual point of substance...one that will not vanish regardless of any vilification thrown our way. I and the other members of the LGBT community stand by our biological sexual orientation regardless of the obviously phobic and/or hateful misrepresentations of our identities. Since that seems to be the only point of contention for these two, I simply have to suggest they stop whining and accept the fact that we will continue to disagree...fundies will continue to try and paint us as the root of all evil, and gay bloggers will continue to poke holes in their arguments. As for this particular argument...seems you boys are the ones guilty of lying. So, take your cheese and curl up in a corner to whine some more...I know I'm not going to lose any sleep over it!

Monday's This And That

2007-08-27T08:43:00.000-05:00

After a much needed vacation and computer changeover (I HATE Windows Vista!!!), I'm back to reading my news feeds. So, here are a few things to get your week started...

** In case you haven't heard, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has resigned after several months of turmoil and controversy. I suppose it's better late than never, but this should have happened long ago. The question now is who will the Chimperor try to push for confirmation? Speculation suggests that Michael Chertoff (head of Homeland Insecurity who not only contributed to the botched Katrina "relief" efforts, but recently announced he had a "gut feeling" about an impending terror attack here in the states) will be up for the job, which would not only further diminish what little integrity the Attorney General's office has left but would also pave the way for yet another Bush appointee in the Homeland Security Department and, no doubt, a very heated confirmation process in Congress. How long until the next election?

** Michael Vick held a press conference where he seemed to apologize for his participation in a dog-fighting ring. I use the word "seemed" because let's face it...he is taking a plea agreement which doesn't fully cover everything in which he was involved, and he's far more upset with the fact he got caught than anything else, I would imagine. As for the bonuses he received from the Atlanta Falcons...it appears the franchise will attempt to go after about half of what they gave Vick. Forgive me for not feeling sorry for him...if and when he serves any time, he'll still be a multi-millionaire.

** Westboro Baptist Church has added Mexico to their ever growing list of countries that God apparently hates. Fred Phelps (aka The Rotting Cryptkeeper) either has a direct line to God or thinks he is God...I'm leaning toward the latter, lol. As usual, I refuse to give them a link, but if you find yourself wanting to develop a bad case of nausea, their site can be found on Google.

Summer Hiatus

2007-08-08T08:10:00.001-05:00

Due to illness and a much needed need for a vacation, I will not be posting until around August 22. Until then, be well and take some time to browse the archive.

Janet Folger Looks Stupid...Again

2007-07-31T08:43:00.000-05:00

You would think that someone who posts a weekly article would make sure and check all available sources before allowing said article to be posted and distributed. Unfortunately, the incredibly unhinged Janet Folger had her head so far up her...well, you get the picture...that she didn't check her facts.

In her weekly article posted on WingNutDaily today, Folger urges her fellow wingnuts to watch the "Values Voters Debate" (the Republican version, lol...the Democrats will get their shot later) on September 17, rather than watching the CNN/YouTube Republican debate scheduled for the same night. Always ready with an attack on anything she deems remotely liberal, Janet blasted off with this...

"While CNN's YouTube debate for the Democratic candidates took place a week
ago Monday, I found it interesting they didn't plan a comparable debate for the
Republicans last week. Or this week. They didn't schedule the Republican YouTube
debate for next month. They scheduled it for ... Sept. 17 – the same day of the
Values Voters Presidential Debate. Coincidence? One thing that's not a
coincidence: why they can't seem to get anyone to come – the majority who care
about family values have already agreed to attend the values voters
debate."

First of all, CNN has already announced that the Republican debate is being postponed because so many of the candidates had scheduling conflicts or were going to be attending so many debates in the month of September that the CNN event was just going to be one too many. While spinning her wheels looking for some vast left-wing conspiracy, Ms. Folger didn't bother to check her facts. Second, no information on where the debate was being broadcasted was mentioned. I find that funny, because the purpose of her article (other than demonizing the evil that is all Democrats) was to mobilize the fundie base and get them to watch the debate. I suppose fundies have some sort of mental telepathy that isn't granted the rest of us, but I have no idea how they are supposed to know where to even tune in to see this great debate.

In her final statements, Janet again shows her stupidity and arrogance by saying...

"This isn't about partisanship. It's about values. We are less concerned
about the letter behind your name than we are about the values in your heart and
the policies of your administration. What matters to you? Well, where you are on
Sept. 17 will say it all. Will the candidates address the largest voting block
in America? Or will they be more concerned about raising money or catering to the flaky
agenda of a left-leaning Frosty the Snowman? We will see."

The hell it isn't about partisanship! That's a blatant lie, and she knows it, but what's worse is she's implying that candidates who decide to attend the CNN debate aren't interested in tough questions. The only question of the 39 posed to the Democrats that she mentions is the admittedly ridiculous Frosty the Snowman question. In truth, though, the questions chosen were rather well balanced in my opinion. I suppose that Ms. Folger isn't really interested in balance, though...she's obviously gone the way of FOX News in throwing out the concept of fair and balanced reporting. I realize I'm being repetitive, but the CNN debate won't be on the 17th as she restates in that final paragraph, so her condescending remarks are somewhat laughable.

If anyone knows where to see this values-based debate, though, please let me know. I want to see it so I can see the "right-leaning Frosty the Snowman," LOL!

Tuesday's This And That

2007-07-30T08:06:00.000-05:00

Just something to get your week off and running, folks.

** Those lovable little nutcases over at WingNutDaily are all excited because another publication gave them credit for an article discussing Paris Hilton's high school hockey stint. In an article published June 14th, WND wrote about Hilton's hockey "career," and the Connecticut publication picked up on it. I suppose it was a slow news day, or WND once again contradicted its "hard news" stance...who knows. If you want a laugh at the expense of Paris, though, give it a read.

** Here's an interesting perspective on the civil union mess in New Jersey and a short quote from the article...

"So civil unions aren't just legally unequal to marriage; they're not just
emotionally unequal; they're not even just morally unequal. They're unequal in
the most literal, practical sense of the word. Even in the state where the civil
union is the law, people in civil unions are not being treated the same by their
employers as people who are married."

Give it a read, because the blatant differences between marriages and civil unions are discussed in great detail. Separate but equal just doesn't cut it...period!

** Okay, this article from New Zealand has me both slightly disgusted and shaking my head...I don't know how else to describe it, LOL. Apparently, it's not kosher for vegan individuals to have sex with 'carnivores.' Now there's a new category, vegansexuals, to denote those who not only don't eat meat, but won't have sex with anyone who does. Here's the quote that just had me grossed out, though, lol...

"One vegan respondent from Christchurch said: "I believe we are what we consume,
so I really struggle with bodily fluids, especially sexually."

I so didn't need to read that at 8 am, LOL!

** It seems that Paris Hilton's billionaire grandfather has had enough of her ridiculousness and has taken away her inheritance. Okay, so she won't get any money when this 79 year old man dies, but let's be serious...how much money does she have already? I doubt this declaration is really a big deal, and I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over it!

Shapiro Calls Pushing For Same-Sex Marriage A 'Progressives' Political Trick'

2007-07-26T09:14:00.001-05:00

Do you remember the YouTube debate question posed by a black, Southern pastor, asking why religion should be used to prevent same-sex marriage? I posted about it a few days ago, and it was one of the questions chosen for the debate. Benjamin Shapiro of WingNutDaily, though, sees the whole concept as some sort of political trick, and you won't believe why.

In summing up Edwards' response to the question of imposing religion on the issue of gay marriage, Shapiro says the following...

"Sen. Edwards first stated that based on his religious principles, he was
personally opposed to same-sex marriage. Then, he retreated from his principles:
"I think it is absolutely wrong, as president of the United States, for me to
have used that faith basis as a basis for denying anybody their rights, and I
will not do that when I'm president of the United States."

Ben is right (and you have no idea how much it pains me to say that, lol), Edwards' response was one of the most uncommitted, spineless, safe, pointless...well, I could keep on going, but I think you get the point. It's Ben's next few statements that make my blood boil...

"Edwards was clearly mistaken in his appraisal of the role of religious
values in politics. Religion shapes morals; morals shape politics. The
Constitution forbids Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of
religion. It does not bar politicians or voters from consulting their moral
compasses in charting America's course on the big issues of our day."

Politicians can consult their moral compasses all they want, but they are NOT permitted to impose their religious values or mores on any of us...period. He continues talking about how "progressives" are forcing fundies to bear the burden of proof on issues pertaining to gay rights. He preaches about the ridiculousness of forcing "tradition" to change (funny how these self-righteous fundies almost always align themselves with tradition), but then says...

"This is not to say that tradition should always prevail. Sometimes change
will meet its burden of proof: anti-slavery advocates, anti-segregation
advocates and anti-sexism advocates made their cases strongly and forcefully,
overcoming the weak arguments for tradition."

Notice how he left out gay rights, lol, but before you get too excited...read what he says next...

"But constant social experimentation – perpetual change justified only by
empty assumptions about the infallibility of the New – discards experience in
favor of untested theory.

An immature society asks, "Why shouldn't we?" assuming the past is
antiquated. A mature society sees the proven value of the old and the possible
value of the new, asking, "Why should we?" Sometimes change should be
undertaken; sometimes not. This is only right: Some change is progress, while
some change is decay. We can only tell progress from decay by asking change to
make its case – to meet its burden of proof."

So, it would seem that Mr. Shapiro is trying to say that progressives (aka advocates of gay rights) are attempting to make our society accept the idea of gay marriage by tricking people into some sort of hypnotized state. Funny, isn't that what he and his fundie pals have been trying to do all along? What he calls "proven value" is relative...a fact he will probably go to his grave denying. Sorry Ben, but it sounds like you're describing yourself...not the so-called progressives.

Thursday's This And That

2007-07-26T08:25:00.000-05:00

I've got a few short stories for you...consider this an open thread and comment away!

** It looks like McCain's (aka, 'The Tool') campaign may be quickly falling apart. Following the departures of key campaign members last week, The Wall Street Journal is reporting that his entire media team has resigned. I'll refrain from doing my "happy dance" because I don't want to scare anyone, lol, but it's hard for me to hide my delight with this news.

** I apologize in advance for this post because I swore I wouldn't blog about this...BUT, lol, you've no doubt heard about Lindsay Lohan's latest arrest involving a car chase while under the influence and in the possession of cocaine. It seems she decided to send an email to Access Hollywood (according to Newsday.com), in which she states...

"I am innocent. I did not do drugs, they're not mine ... I appreciate everyone
giving me my privacy."Lohan also wrote that she "was almost hit by my assistant
Tarin's mom." She apparently refers to a car chase involving Lohan and her
personal assistant's mother, which ended just prior to the arrest in the parking
lot of Santa Monica's Civic Auditorium."

Anyone buying that? I know I'm not, but what really upsets me about this story is her father who went about booking approximately 7 different talk show appearances following his daughter's most recent arrest. What's despicable about his actions is that he appears to be capitalizing on his daughter's downward spiral to destruction by getting his face on as many television shows as possible. It's possible I'm overreacting, but he and Lindsay's mother are ultimately responsible for all this turmoil by allowing her to enter the Hollywood stage at such a young age. It reminds me of the very young Drew Barrymore and the struggles she endured...and overcame. Unfortunately, Lindsay may not have the same success due to the selfish ambitions of her greedy and self-consumed parents.

** Peter LaBarbera has yet another rant up today about the HRC/LOGO Democratic debate. I won't go into great detail about what he has to say out of courtesy to those who might be trying to eat while they read this, lol, but there is one statement that stood out to me...

"Who represents the tens of millions of Americans who morally object to
homosexuality, and who stand to lose their religilous (sic) and First
Amendment freedoms if HRC’s agenda is enacted? (I hereby volunteer my services
as a conservative questioner if the organizers care to make a pretense of
journalistic objectivity.)"

The free speech fallacy aside, what makes Pete think he is some beacon of journalistic objectivity? Other than his unadulterated hatred for the homosexual community and the various articles he's written to that effect, where are his journalistic credentials that would bring this so-called objectivity? Obviously, HRC president Joe Solmonese and musician Melissa Etheridge probably don't have any credentials themselves, but that's not really the point. If Pete can blather away on his site, why can't the homosexual community hold a debate without its integrity coming into question? Just my opinion on the matter.

WND Attempts To Demonize Organization For The Alleged Actions Of One Person

2007-07-26T08:17:00.000-05:00

If the charges mentioned in today's story prove to be true, then I will be among the first to proclaim the utter despicability of this man's actions...BUT...WingNutDaily pounced on the opportunity to demonize a legitimate organization. The article begins...

"The outreach coordinator of Milwaukee's homosexual "PrideFest"
is now facing a felony charge after police say he sought to meet a 14-year-old
boy via the Internet for a sexual rendezvous.
According to authorities,
David W. Bodoh, 42, of Wauwatosa, Wis., apparently made contact with a boy from
Oconomowoc, and eventually set up a meeting with an undercover state agent who
posed online as the child."

Okay, like I said...if these charges prove to be true, then Mr. Bodoh needs to be put away. Here's where WND crosses the line, though...

"Though Bodoh's name has been removed from the PrideFest website, an archived
version indicates he was part of the production team for the 2007 event, listed
as "Community Outreach."

According to its website, "The mission of PrideFest is to advocate,
celebrate and educate the general community and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and
Transgender (LGBT) community with regard to all aspects of LGBT culture. To
accomplish this, PrideFest produces an annual Pride celebration. Educational
events include, but are not limited to, exhibits, lectures, art and community
outreach which fully display the diversity of LGBT culture."

I'll give WND some credit, this was very subtly done, but their point was still made. And, once again...the actions of one individual automatically demonize and condemn the rest of us as being some sort of predators who are just waiting to assault an innocent child. I realize that the fundies see the homosexual community as pedophiles by nature...which infuriates me...but this was a very lame attempt on their part to try and link us all to the actions of one individual. The, "where we go one, we go all," nonsense has to stop.

Out Of Left Field?

2007-07-25T08:26:00.000-05:00

Just about every day, the folks over at WingNutDaily have what they call an 'Out of Left Field,' feature where they highlight an article or blog that they deem to be ultra liberal. While I usually find this feature rather humorous, today's offering left me shaking my head. In a blog article published by Truthdig, the subject of children's health insurance was addressed. Presently, the subject of the S-CHIPS program is being discussed, heatedly, in Congress and, as the article reports...

"Congress is considering bipartisan legislation that will cover poor
children in the U.S.

The major obstacle? President Bush is vowing to veto the bill, even
though Republican and Democratic senators reached bipartisan agreement on it.
The bill adds $35 billion to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program over
the next five years by increasing federal taxes on cigarettes.

The conservative Heritage Foundation is against the tobacco tax to fund
SCHIP, saying that it “disproportionately burdens low-income smokers” as well as
“young adults.” No mention is made of any adverse impact on Heritage-funder
Altria Group, the cigarette giant formerly known as Philip Morris."

Disproportionately burdens low-income smokers? Ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous! That aside, how, exactly is this issue something "out of left field?" The Chimperor is waving his banana sword in the air and is trying to appear strong on this issue, but the heartbreaking stories (which are only the tip of the iceberg) should rouse even the hardest of hearts...Bush's included. The fact is that health insurance for poor children is an obvious necessity and Bush is pulling his usual stubbornness...just because he can. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, and shame on you WND for labeling this issue as something that is out of left field!

Monday's This And That

2007-07-23T12:29:00.000-05:00

Just a few items to start off your week...some funny ones and some, well, you'll see, LOL!

** The next season of Fox's hit show (and one of my personal favorites) '24' will feature a female president played by openly lesbian actress Cherry Jones, according to the Baltimore Sun. It's unclear as to whether her character will be lesbian as well, but I suppose we can hope!

** This is a story I just have to shake my head and wonder, "What were they thinking." Macy's ran into a little bit of trouble over one of their marketing ploys attempting to lure in more Hispanic shoppers. They introduced a t-shirt bearing the phrase, "Brown is the new white." Needless to say, Macy's has since pulled the shirt from its stores and has started the apology campaign.

** The American Family Association as issued one of its 'Action Alerts' regarding the hate crimes legislation, again suggesting that homosexuals don't deserve the sort of protections outlined in the bill. I wonder if Ted Kennedy and the other sponsors of the bill added Evangelicals (aka, Fundies) to the bill, if they'd still be making such a ridiculous uproar about it. Who knows, lol...they may just feel to 'dirty' to even comment!

** Matt Barber and all the other fundies with inoperable television remote controls should be breathing a little easier today, as the bill that would curb foul language during prime time managed to get the approval of a Senate panel. When a bill that suggests censoring religious programming is presented, I hope these fundies embrace it as much as they have this bill. After all, you just can't have it both ways.

** Those nutcases over at Westboro Baptist have proclaimed that God hates Ireland now too. This is just another of many proclamations (including the more well known, God hates America pronouncement), and will probably not be the last. If you want to see their latest press release, you can Google them...I refuse to give them a link. (h/t to Jeremy at Good As You)

Tony Perkins Still Doesn't Know What Country He Lives In

2007-07-23T11:10:00.000-05:00

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council has an article posted, blasting both the hate crimes legislation and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. He begins...

"Earlier in the week I wrote about thought crimes legislation and the
plight of a Canadian pastor who's on trial for allegedly running a foul of a
similar law."

Okay, so we're no longer calling it hate crimes legislation or even mentioning the bill's new name, the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and we're back to noting the legal hoopla that is occurring in another country. For all the discussion about that ever elusive agenda of ours and how underhanded it supposedly is, changing the name of the bill in your own column is pretty damn underhanded! Tony continues...

"On Capitol Hill we are facing a similar battle. The Employment
Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would give homosexuals conduct the same
protections we currently give black Americans and women. To be black or female
is, as Gen. Colin Powell pointed out, an immutable condition. But people choose
whether or not to act on their homosexual disposition."

First, I don't understand why homosexuals...like every other human being in this country regardless of their gender or ethnicity...shouldn't be granted the same protection from employment discrimination. More importantly, though, Tony skewed what Colin Powell actually had to say on the subject. As Jeremy over at Good As You pointed out, the quote Tony gave was taken out of context. That link will take you to Jeremy's post on this article and will give you more details on finding the actual text of Powell's comments. Powell's actual quote was...

“Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation
is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of
the two is a convenient, but invalid argument” (quote courtesy of Good As You)

Jeremy analyzes this very well in his post, so I won't be redundant. Instead, let me point out that, once again, a member of the fundie community has tried to use a quote incorrectly in order to make their position seem more viable...the very thing the homosexual community is constantly, yet falsely, accused of doing. Tony continues by turning his attention to ENDA...

"Advocates of ENDA argue that there is a religious exemption for churches.
The weakness of such exemptions was illustrated this week in England. An open
homosexual named John Reaney applied for a job as a youth director for the
Anglican diocese of Hereford. The archbishop of this diocese refused him
employment. Mr. Reaney successfully sued the diocese for discrimination under
the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations of 2007. The religious
exemption in the law applied only to ministers. The exemption became ambiguous
when it came to employment for other duties within the church. This is another
example where legislators provide what appears to be an exemption to appease
churches when the legislation is passed but leave them vague enough so that the
courts get the final say and religious freedom is lost."

Did you catch this example's country of origin? If Tony and the other fundies are going to insist on this line of logic (and I use that term very loosely), then let's take a moment and look at a couple of other things going on another country in recent days. Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, has warned foreigners that they will be expelled should they decide to criticize him or his government. This is on the heels of a Venezuelan television network being forced to go to cable because of it's opposition to the Chavez government.

Should Americans now fear having our most basic freedoms of speech curtailed because of the actions of a foreign leader in his own country? Even with the expanded executive powers that Bush has granted himself, none of them involve precluding anyone from speaking out against him as a leader or as a person, for that matter. Where, then, is the threat that in this country...especially when the curtailing of certain free speech rights could be infringed upon when it comes to criticizing the President...that this hate crimes bill will somehow muzzle religious leaders?

These cases (which have been repeated by various fundie leaders ad nauseum) have no bearing upon the laws of this country, and only represent an extremely lame attempt on the part of the fundies to use the fear-mongering tactic in trying to rouse their base. Ultimately, the fundie base can whine and rant all they want...the truth is that they have no legal leg to stand on.

UPDATE: OneNewsNow Reveals The Ignorance Of Its Readers By Posting Poll

2007-07-18T11:12:00.001-05:00

Apparently, the average OneNewsNow reader doesn't have a clue where the Democratic candidates stand on the issue of gay rights either...

"OneNewsNow.com asked you: What conclusion can one draw about a
presidential candidate who is willing to participate in a homosexual-led debate?
You said:"

While I find myself shaking my head at the utter stupidity on display here, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. I wonder, though, if the debate were to be monitored by the Southern Baptist Convention and aired on CBN, how would Pete feel about it being called a "pro-Christian" debate? But, therein lies the usual double standard, right?

Well, Babs...We Sincerely Hope The Same Doesn't Happen To You

2007-07-18T10:57:00.000-05:00

While in the midst of ranting and raving against all things evil (aka homosexuals), Peter LaBarbera has made an outrageous comment about equal rights. The funny thing is, he probably doesn't realize that the same thing could happen to him and other fundies. Citing an article by an openly gay columnist for the Detroit News, Babs points to the author's justifiable concern over recent Supreme Court decisions and the impact they may have in the future...

"The Roberts court — whose votes in nongay cases strongly signaled that Chief Justice
John Roberts and Samuel Alito can be expected to join Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas
in opposing almost any imaginable gay-rights plea — is moving frighteningly
close to having the five votes it would need to weaken the groundbreaking
rulings of 1996 and 2003 acknowledging that gay Americans are protected by the
Constitution….

“This term confirmed a lot of our fears,” says Jon Davidson, legal
director at Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.

What alarmed gay rights litigators? A string of 5-4 decisions against
the powerless or minorities: Rulings blocking workers from suing over sex
discrimination if it’s not discovered immediately; ignoring public school
students’ free-speech rights, and hampering efforts to create racially diverse
schools."

The author, Deb Price, makes a very good point...there seems to be a pattern emerging where cases of social, sexual or racial discrimination are concerned. Here's where Babs completely misses the point of how this very same pattern could turn around and bite him...

"We hope that openly lesbian Detroit News Columnist Deb Price is
correct and that her homosexual activist comrades have much to fear in
the direction of the Supreme Court. However, it is frightening to think that so
much is riding on decisions of swing Justice Anthony Kennedy — who in his
opinions (e.g., Lawrence v. Texas) has often seemed more interested in
pleasing the editorial writers at the New York Times than being faithful to
the Constitution.– Peter LaBarbera"

Has it ever occurred to you, Pete, that one day the court may rule to infringe on your right to blather away with your hate-filled speech? Or, did it occur to you that Christians in general (whom the homosexual community has not tried to stifle or persecute) might be the victims of unjust Supreme Court decisions? You see us as the enemy...the root of all evil...and we get it. But be careful what you wish for, Babs...you may be next.

Wednesday's This And That

2007-07-18T08:16:00.000-05:00

**Fred Phelps, founder and leader of the nefarious Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas, has once again asked to have a monument added to a local historical plaza. As the Casper Star Tribune reported yesterday, the monument Phelps wants would bear a picture of Matthew Shepard and would read...

"MATTHEW SHEPARD, Entered Hell October 12, 1998, at age 21, in Defiance of
God's Warning: 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is
abomination.' Leviticus 18:22."

His deranged request will most likely be denied...again...as the Mayor has deemed the request as "full of hate and not in the spirit of the monument plaza." Thanks to Jeremy over at Good As You for reporting on this story.

**In my daily visits to World Net Daily I've made a couple of interesting observations. In between the actual articles and various news stories are ads for various WND books and products, over-the-counter sleep aids, stock tips, survival tips and more. What I found most interesting was an ad that runs fairly frequently for a book that advocates getting out of paying taxes and another that discusses how to get out of just about anything IRS related. Maybe it's just me, but shouldn't a bunch of Bible-beating fundies be more concerned with upholding the admonition found in the book of Matthew. Jesus was talking with a bunch of Pharisees who asked him...

"Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
Matthew 22:17

His answer comes in verse 21...

"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

So, it would seem that WND is being hypocritical on almost a daily basis with their ads. Come on, WingNuts...don't throw scripture at us unless you're willing to apply it yourselves!

**According to the LA Times, binational same-sex couples are facing a problem that is not often thought of. While heterosexual Americans can bring their spouses into the country with just a little paperwork, same-sex couples are being denied that right. Of course, the fundies are celebrating this as a "defense of marriage" victory, but it's just another example of why marriage equality is the enormous issue that it is.

**I got this video link from someone special, and it's so funny that I had to share it. It's a clip from MSNBC's show "Morning Joe" and I think it represents what many of us think about the ridiculous amount of media coverage that Paris Hilton received. Enjoy, and thank you for sending it to me, C.

http://news.aol.com/entertainment/television/story/_a/mika-brzezinski-paris-hilton/20070708135909990001

**For a group who has openly denounced Harry Potter as the root of all evil and something that will lead to the eventual conversion of every fan to witchcraft, those little nuts at WND can't seem to quit posting something about it. Today's post is a prime example because it doesn't take on the usual demonizing tone but, rather, discusses how there are so many posts all over the internet giving spoilers that may or may not be true. Hmmmm...so, do we hate Harry or not, WND?

**In another of Jeremy's posts today is a video from YouTube that might just be one chosen for the CNN/YouTube debates. This Southern pastor is speaking about religion and gay marriage, and it's not what you'd expect. Take a look at it and see...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6iYliBayh4

LaBabs Laments HRC/LOGO Debates

2007-07-17T09:22:00.000-05:00

I sometimes wonder where Peter LaBarbera's head is, because paying attention to the individual positions of candidates is apparently not top on his list. According to an article on OneNewsNow...

"A pro-family activist says the frontrunners for the Democratic
presidential nomination are "pandering to the gay lobby" by agreeing to take
part in a televised debate moderated by homosexual activists.

The top three Democratic presidential candidates -- Hillary Clinton, Barack
Obama, and John Edwards -- plan to take part in a one-hour debate August 9
devoted solely to "gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender" (GLBT) issues. The
debate will be televised live from Los Angeles on the Viacom-owned homosexual
television network "LOGO."

Before I go any further, let's review where these candidates stand on gay rights. First, there's Hilary "flip-flop" Clinton, whose position on gay marriage changes depending on her audience. According to a July 8th report by The San Fransisco Chronicle...

"But even standing alongside San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, Assemblyman
Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, and state Treasurer Phil Angelides, the Democratic
candidate for governor, on the morning after New York's highest court upheld a
state ban on same-sex marriage, Clinton steadfastly ignored questions about the
issue.

It was a marked contrast from a visit to San Francisco on a 1996 book tour,
when the then-first lady expressed her views without reservation.
"Children
are better off if they have a mother and a father,'' Clinton said in the San
Francisco interview with the then-Hearst-owned San Francisco Examiner. "My
preference is that we do all we can to strengthen traditional marriage ... and
that people engaged in parenting children be committed to one another.''

Then there's Barack Obama, who has been very outspoken in his disdain for the idea of gay marriage. On the floor of the Senate, Obama stated...

"Now, I realize that for some Americans, this is an important issue. And I
should say that personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a
woman."

So, he knows marriage equality is an important issue...but he doesn't want to touch the issue without wearing double gloves. Obviously, he's not the most avid supporter of our efforts toward marriage equality. Then there's Edwards, who has really disappointed me lately...especially following an unfortunate open mic incident wherein an alliance between his campaign and Hillary's was suggested. That aside, Elizabeth Edwards seems to be more supportive of gay marriage than her candidate husband, and I wonder if her recent appearances and soundbites aren't an attempt to make him look supportive without his actually stating his support. Here's an example of Edwards' stance on this issue...

"When John Edwards was asked about gay marriage during a debate earlier
this month, he emphasized his support for civil unions and partnership benefits
but said, "I don't think the federal government has a role in telling either
states or religious institutions, churches, what marriages they can bless and
can't bless."

With all of that in mind, how in the world can Babs think or suggest that the candidates are "pandering to the gay lobby?" Yes, the debate is being moderated by an organization that is continuing to fight for marriage equality and, yes, it's being aired on a gay-friendly network. but so far, Pete doesn't have much of a leg to stand on with his opening statements. He continues to show his ignorance on the issue...

"The whole thing is structured to be pro-homosexual -- and one wonders what
candidates are doing to be sensitive to the pro-family people who still believe
homosexuality is wrong," exclaims LaBarbera."

Well, Pete...they're doing quite a bit...as their quoted positions on the issues in question very clearly show. Again, I suppose Babs has been too busy foaming at the mouth over the sexual activities of everyone else to spend much time researching the positions of the various campaigns. I will give him credit for one statement, though...

"LaBarbera calls the debate "one of the most extraordinary developments in our
country's history." He laments the societal mindset from which such an event
would even occur."

While he let his true feelings show yet again, Pete is right when he says that this particular debate is an extraordinary development. Hopefully, it will be the start of many more.

Matt Barber Links All Homosexuals Through The Actions Of Two

2007-07-16T09:26:00.001-05:00

I suppose that the only way Matt Barber and his fundie friends can substantiate their claims that homosexuals have an evil agenda is to point to ridiculous actions and isolated incidents and say, "See...we told you so!" In this recent rant (available through audio only, unfortunately), Barber cites the case of a New Jersey lesbian couple who sued a church for not allowing them to conduct their union ceremony on their property.

"In New Jersey, a Lesbian couple is suing a Methodist-run church retreat
because it would not allow the couple to rent the property’s pavilion for their
civil union ceremony. Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Issues, says
this points to the true aims of homosexual activists and what Bible-believing
Christians have in store for them if those aims come to pass."

I tried to find some other source for this story, but the only one I found was here at CNS News...

"(CNSNews.com) - A lesbian couple in New Jersey has filed a complaint
against a Methodist-owned campground, claiming illegal discrimination because
their request for a civil union ceremony on the property was denied.Harriet
Bernstein and Luisa Paster in March applied for use of the Ocean Grove Camp
Meeting Association's Boardwalk Pavilion for their civil union ceremony, planned
for September. The Methodist organization rejected their application and later
told Bernstein in an email that it did not allow civil unions to be held on the
pavilion."

Okay, for the record, private property is just that...private. The Methodist Church is under no obligation, in my opinion, to oblige this couple, and the entire concept of the suit is utterly absurd. Surely other venues were available, and it seems to me that the couple may have tried to insist on this particular one for reasons other than its scenic beauty. I would venture to guess that the two were trying to make a point...a lame one at that...and, consequently, provided an opportunity for the fundies to pounce and make all homosexuals look as ridiculous and vindictive as these two were made to look.

Anyone who's been paying attention to the fundie press knows that this idea that all homosexuals are exactly alike and behave in the same manner has been used to demonize the entire gay rights movement. While Barber and his friends are incorrect in that assumption, members of the homosexual community should know better than to take such actions which jeopardize the true and legitimate causes we are really about.

Romney and Same-Sex Marriage

2007-07-16T08:19:00.000-05:00

It seems to be a slow Monday morning at WingNutDaily, because they have this feature article which invokes the wisdom of "experts," 0n the subject of Mitt Romney...crediting him with "homosexual marriage." As I read over the article...which is incredibly long-winded and rambling...I noticed that all the so-called experts who were asked to contribute were all on the extremely conservative end of the political spectrum. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, considering the source, but I was surprised that his current stance concerning same-sex marriage wasn't directly addressed. Here are a couple of examples of Romney facts presented in the article...

"Romney's aides have told WND that after four of the seven court members
reinterpreted the definition of marriage, he believed he had no choice but to
direct clerks and others to change state marriage forms and begin registering
same-sex couples.
Some opponents contend that with those actions, Romney did
no more or less than create the first homosexual marriages recognized in the
nation."

Okay, so Romney acted because the courts gave him no choice? I still don't buy that, but I think that WND is giving Romney way too much credit for creating homosexual marriage in this country. Here's a campaign quote that makes my point...

"It was Eric Fehrnstrom, a spokesman for the Romney campaign, who told WND
that Romney, "by virtue of being at ground zero in the culture wars … has been
the most outspoken defender of traditional marriage in the country."
He said
Romney "took every conceivable step within the law to defend traditional
marriage. He held rallies, he went to court, he lobbied legislators and he used
the bully pulpit of his office to make effective public arguments in favor of
marriage as the union of a man and a woman."
Romney also enforced a 1913 law
prohibiting couples from coming to Massachusetts to get married if they were
barred from marrying in their home state, he said.
"The enforcement of this
law stopped gay marriage from being visited on virtually every other state in
the nation," he said."

So now, Romney is an "outspoken defender of traditional marriage," and a candidate who will most likely fight against gay rights issues should he be elected. What became even more clear in reading this article was that the goal seemed to be geared less toward demonizing Romney and more toward demonizing gay rights as a whole. For example...

"In a previously issued statement he made in support of the Federal Marriage
Amendment, FitzGibbon warned of the immediate and dramatic social impact of such
a decision, including a mandate by public schools in Massachusetts to teach
homosexuality to children.
He noted one school dictum that said,
"Administrators, teachers, parents and students are reminded that no action or
speech will be tolerated that results in harassment, discrimination, bias or
intimidation toward any member of our community for any reasons, including
his/her sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation."

"The effect of the Goodridge decision has been to encourage the indoctrination
of public school students in the merits of legalization of [same-sex marriage],"
he said."

And there it is...directing school officials against permitting any harassment of students based on their sexual orientation is now tantamount to teaching homosexuality to children. Following that logic, disallowing any derogatory speech aimed at differing ethnic groups is the same as indoctrinating and recruiting children for the Neo-Nazi movement.

The WingNuts are trying to credit Romney with the inception of same-sex marriage, including the benefits and responsibilities that should follow, but have seemingly succeeded in taking another opportunity to denounce the idea of gay rights. In truth, Romney is being given way too much credit, and his flip-flop soundbites on the various gay rights issues are proof that it depends who his audience is as to what he'll say or do.

Matt Barber Slaps Homosexuals In The Face

2007-07-09T10:16:00.000-05:00

First of all, Matt needs to look up the word hyperbole before he tries to use it again. It's obvious in his article that he doesn't know the meaning of the word...

"Through the hyperbolic and repetitive use of such concocted expressions as
“marriage equality” and “gay rights,” the left has dishonestly but effectively
framed the debate over homosexual behaviors."

Call me petty if you like, but the term, "hyperbolic," refers to things which are exaggerated, oh, and my Greek readers will love the fact that the origin of the word in question is Greek. How, exactly, are the ideals of marriage equality and gay rights (again, I love how these phrases have to be put in quotes, lol) hyperbolic? Matt goes on...

"By co-opting and misapplying the language of the genuine civil rights
movement, homosexual activists — along with kindred leftists in the media,
government and elsewhere — are making considerable strides toward reshaping our
culture. They’ve enjoyed much success in attaining official government
recognition of a disordered and empty, though demonstrably
mutable, sexual lifestyle."

Let's just break down that little paragraph, shall we? First, gay rights and civil rights are similar in many ways. The civil rights movement demanded equality for all people regardless of their skin color. The gay rights activists are asking for nothing different. Second, was the civil rights movement responsible for reshaping our culture? Absolutely not...it taught us to respect the differences of others. Lastly, the, "demonstrably mutable," lifestyle (and it's not a lifestyle at all...it's a biological definitive) has been backed up and affirmed by the American Psychological Association. That, in itself, begs the question of how the concept of gay rights could be mutable at all. Perhaps that's another word Mr. Barber needs to look up.

Here's where Matt is really going with this flawed argument...

"While recently addressing the rapidly downward spiral in homosexual
“marriages” in Massachusetts and elsewhere, Tammy Mosher, Massachusetts State
Director of Concerned Women for America, observed, “The thrill of their
‘victory’ is gone. It’s not about their ‘right’ to marry and it never has been.
It's about condoning their lifestyle and removing the sacredness of traditional
marriage.”

"And Mrs. Mosher is absolutely right. As the numbers on this whacky “gay
marriage” social experiment continue to plummet, it’s becoming obvious that
homosexual activists don’t care one iota about “marriage.” Their true agenda is
not really “marriage equality” and the right to enter into monogamous
“marriages,” but rather, their intention is to water down traditional marriage
so that the institution — which is so very important to healthy child rearing
and a healthy society — no longer has a unique and respected place in society.
Everything that marriage stands for (i.e., monogamy, fidelity, the nuclear
family and those “oppressive” gender stereotypes associated with the need for a
“mom” and a “dad”) must be done away with in order to foster acceptance of sin.

But it goes far beyond simply undermining marriage. In order to
legitimize disordered sexual behaviors, which have traditionally been considered
immoral and are scientifically and objectively proven to be destructive, it’s
necessary to dissolve the notion that traditional marriage and the nuclear
family are normative and represent the gold standard. According to some, that’s
a sexually repressive Judeo-Christian concept, you see. And in order for secular
humanism to properly take root, we need a society which embraces the idea that
all forms of sexual behavior — no matter how perverse or destructive — are
equally valid."

So, the statistics from one state are completely indicative of the rest of the country, and "secular humanism" means anything that doesn't fit into the fundamentalist view of what our society should resemble. Bottom line...homosexuals simply want the privilege to marry and enjoy the benefits of marriage just as heterosexual couples do. The fundies can blather away all they want, but the truth will not be buried beneath a bunch of Biblical talk.

Tuesday's This And That

2007-07-09T08:07:00.000-05:00

So much stupidity...so little time, LOL!

**Damn!! I can't have sex in a public toilet in Fort Lauderdale...or have any privacy either, apparently. That just ruins all my vacation plans, LOL! In response to the city's apparent problem with homosexual activity, Fort Lauderdale's mayor is planning to install "robotic toilets." WingNutDaily has an article up on their site, describing how these new toilets will automatically open after a certain period of time. I wonder what impact having the toilet door open while I was in the middle of...ummm...feminine hygeine would have on the city's "family-friendly environment?"

**In another WND article, an alert of sorts was issued about Christians being arrested for praying. Of course, once you read the article, you find out that the ones arrested were lying on the sidewalks and disrupting pedestrian traffic during a gay pride event. You know what? It's entirely possible for a person to pray without making a spectacle of themselves or obstructing a public event.

**In yet another WingNut article, there's a report of Christians being prevented from distributing materials at a Fourth of July event. First, there is the issue of the separation of church and state...but beyond that, why couldn't this pastor hand out his tracts as people left the event rather than insisting on circulating them while people were enjoying the festivities? You can't break the rules then cry about being the victim of censorship...especially when other options were available.

**"Claymates" beware...don't annoy the American Idol star! According to a Yahoo/AP News report, Clay Aiken was involved in an altercation aboard a Continental Airlines flight. He allegedly rested his foot near a female passenger who then shoved him. The FBI was involved and it seems Aiken may be put on a watch list because of the altercation. Poor guy...he'd just joked about being beaten up by a girl during a show before the flight.

**My favorite of all, though, is this little story from the New York Post. You're probably following the link and wondering why I find the story so amusing. So, the FDA has approved a
transdermal dementia treatment...wonderful idea, but could we send a case to the White House? Then we should send another case to the Cheney residence...especially if he's planning any hunting trips this fall.

Sheehan Calls For Bush's Impeachment

2007-07-09T07:40:00.000-05:00

In a report from various sources (CNN, FOX, AP, etc.), Cindy Sheehan has issued a challenge to current speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi...

"CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) - Six weeks after announcing her departure from the peace movement, Cindy Sheehan said Sunday that she plans to run
against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unless she introduces articles of impeachment against President Bush in the next two weeks."

As you probably guessed, I have a thing or two to say about this. First, I think articles of impeachment should be brought against the Chimperor...something that should have been done a long time ago. It's clear, I think, to just about everyone that Bush's motives in invading Iraq were questionable at best and his continued stubbornness is causing the senseless deaths of thousands of our American youth...along with innocent Iraq citizens caught in the quagmire of what is essentially a civil war.

Second, Cindy Sheehan...while initially intending to protest the war through grieving the death of her own son...succumbed to the media hoopla and made her efforts in Crawford much more about her than anything else. In short, she diminished her own credibility as a war protester by making herself the center of attention.

Finally, the idea of Sheehan defeating Pelosi in the upcoming election is somewhat laughable. I truly hope that Sheehan's motives are to try and force the Democrats to take some action in demanding troop pull-outs, but I wonder if this is just another attempt for her to get some new press. Honestly, I don't think Sheehan would be able to defeat Pelosi...the first ever female speaker of the House...but perhaps the threat will be enough to bring the bloodshed in Iraq to an end, and make the Bush administration take responsibility for its mistakes. Only time will tell.

Taking a Vacation

2007-07-05T08:09:00.001-05:00

I know this is late...I should have posted this Tuesday, lol...but The Terminator will be on vacation until Monday. In the meantime, check out this video on YouTube and browse my other posts. A reader tipped me off about it, and for some reason Blogger won't let me upload the video...so, here's the link...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=S-mP0Vd6jZo

Since the Chimperor feels it's necessary for the US to clean up everyone's mess, why not that one, LOL.

Enjoy your weekend!

Feminsim Responsible For Lesbianism?

2007-07-02T07:40:00.000-05:00

Leave it to the WingNuts to take the story of one woman and use it to try and erase the line between homosexuality and biology. That's exactly what this story is trying to do...

"A 53-year-old university professor and campaigner
for legalized same-sex marriage in the UK said she was once a married "happy
heterosexual" who had no doubts about her sexual orientation, but political
activity and involvement in feminist causes "changed" her into a lesbian.

Sue
Wilkinson, professor of Feminist and Health Studies at Loughborough
University, told the London Times that her 17-year marriage to her husband
had been a good one.
But that changed in the mid-1980s when the young
professor became involved with the British
Psychological Society."

First of all, it's clear that her marriage to her husband wasn't a good one, and that her true sexual identity was revealed to her at a later stage of life. Sure, there are those who look for differing experiences, but it's clear that isn't the case for this woman. She continues by pointing her finger at feminists...

"I was never unsure about my sexuality throughout my teens or 20s. I was a happy
heterosexual and had no doubts," said Wilkinson.
"Then I changed, through
political activity and feminism, spending time with women's organizations. It
opened my mind to the possibility of a lesbian identity."

While I find myself bristling at the idea of choosing a sexual identity, I wonder who she's trying to convince with this argument. My eyebrow was raised even more by the other facts presented in the article...

"Wilkinson divorced her husband and has lived with her partner, Prof.
Celia Kitzinger of York
University, for the past 17 years.

"I'd had a very happy marriage and a very good relationship with men,"
she said. "My husband took it very badly."
In 2003, the two women married in
Vancouver, Canada, where same-sex unions are legal. A change in UK law in 2005
recognized their Canadian ceremony as a civil union, but not marriage.
Wilkinson and Kitzinger sued, arguing that foreign heterosexual unions would
automatically be recognized as valid marriages, and the law, as constituted, was
"a breach of our rights under the European Convention on Human Rights."

How, exactly, does a person take on such an uphill legal battle...all the while reiterating that her marriage to her husband was a good one, mind you...if the underlying motivation was anything other than a naturally felt love for her wife? The answer, in my opinion, is that it would be next to impossible. Not only did this woman enter a 17 year relationship/marriage with her partner, but she fought to have that marriage recognized in her home country.

Ms. Wilkinson can blame whomever she wishes, but it's clear that her heart and true identity is that of a lesbian. Biology doesn't change just because a person chooses to deny his or her sexual orientation and blame political or social pressures for their actions. Nice try, WingNuts, but I'm not buying this one in the slightest.

Fed Up With Ann Coulter

2007-06-29T08:48:00.000-05:00

I'll be blatantly honest from the outset here...I've never liked Ann Coulter (a fact I'm sure she'll lose quite a bit of sleep over, lol). Aside from her general abrasiveness and crass remarks, I'm even more offended by her occasional attempt at whining...not unlike her article posted today on WingNutDaily. While she was on the MSNBC show Hardball, Elizabeth Edwards called in to basically ask Ann to stop her attacks on her husband and presidential candidate, John. Here was some of what Ann had to say in her WND article today...

"For the first time in recorded history, the show's host did not interrupt
a guest, but let Elizabeth Edwards ramble on and on, allowing her to browbeat me
for being mean to her husband.
Say, did any TV host ever surprise Al
Franken, Bill Maher or Arianna Huffington with a call by the wife of someone
they've made nasty remarks about? How about a call to John Edwards from the wife
of a doctor he bankrupted with his junk-science lawsuits?"

Is anyone feeling sorry for Ann in the slightest? I'll admit that the call from Elizabeth was a bit lame and I'm disappointed that the whole ordeal was then used as a fundraising push, but Ms. Coulter has absolutely no room to whine, as she has a long history of 'being mean' herself. Her comments made on Good Morning America are what precipitated the phone call, so let's take a look at what Ann really said...

"Coulter told "Good Morning America's" Chris Cuomo: "But about the same time,
Bill Maher was not joking in saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a
terrorist attack. So I've learned my lesson, if I’m gonna saying anything about
John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist
assassination plot."

So, because someone else made a remark...it's perfectly okay for her to make the same remark about another person? Way to accept personal responsibility, Ann! Now, back to the Hardball incident...

"EE: I'm calling you … in the south when we -- when someone does something
that displeases us, we wanna ask them politely to stop doing it. Uh - I'd like
to ask Ann Coulter -- if she wants to debate on issues, on positions -- we
certainly disagree with nearly everything she said on your show today -- um but
uh it's quite another matter for these personal attacks that the things she has
said over the years not just about John but about other candidates -- it lowers
our political dialogue precisely at the time that we need to raise it. So I want
to use the opportunity … to ask her politely stop the personal attacks.

Ann Coulter: OK, so I made a joke -- let's see six months ago -- and as
you point out they've been raising money off of it for six months since
then.

CM: This is yesterday morning, what you said about him.

AC: I didn't say anything about him actually either time.

EE: Ann, you know that's not true. And once more its been going on for
sometime."

Now, based on the quote from the GMA interview on Monday, Ann did say something about John Edwards, and it was a profoundly offensive remark. But here's what Ann had to say today about it...

"I think I may have tuned out at some point, so I can only speak to the
first 45 minutes of Elizabeth Edwards' harangue, but it mostly consisted of
utterly dishonest renditions of things I had said on my "Good Morning America"
interview this week and a column I wrote four years ago. (You can't rush
Edwards' "rapid response team"!) She claimed I had launched unprovoked attacks
on the Edwards' dead son and called for a terrorist attack on her husband.

These are bald-faced lies, and the mainstream media know they are lies.
Yet they were repeated ad nauseam yesterday by the Associated Press, the AOL
pop-up window, CNN, NBC and – stunningly – the host of the lowest-rated cable
show himself, who personally told me he knew the truth.

So for those of you who haven't read any of my five best-selling books:
Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly."

Ummm...who's lying here? It seems Ann did make the terrorist-related comment about John Edwards, and it's on the record with ABC and the rest of the internet-connected world now. There's no getting out of it. And while she tried to point out that the Edwards campaign was using the event as a fundraising tactic, she still felt it necessary to pimp her 'five best-selling books?' I find that absolutely unbelivable.

Ann continues in her WND article, pointing out problems with John Edwards and even asserting that John Kerry was less than enthused with Edwards as a person. If she can back it all up, that's fine...I have no problem with someone expressing an opinion about someone else if it's based upon actual facts. The terrorist comment, though, was over the line in my opinion. It's the very last paragraph of her article that bothers me even more, though...

"I'm a little tired of losers trying to raise campaign cash or TV ratings
off of my coattails, particularly when they use their afflictions or bereavement
schedules to try to silence the opposition. From now on, I'm attacking only
serious presidential candidates, like Dennis Kucinich."

I have only two words for you, Ann...poor baby.

**Here are a few of Ann's other quips that make me wonder why she has the audacity to whine about being picked on...

"I have difficulty ginning up much interest in this story inasmuch as I
think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a
televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle
East and sending liberals to Guantanamo." - December
21, 2005

"Six imams removed from a US Airways flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix are
calling on Muslims to boycott the airline. If only we could get Muslims to
boycott all airlines, we could dispense with airport security altogether." - Anncoulter.com,
November 22, 2006

"(Liberals) are always accusing us of repressing their speech. I say let's
do it. Let's repress them. ... Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First
Amendment," Coulter said during an Oct. 21, 2005, speech
at the University of Florida.

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to
Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler
and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians.
That's war. And this is war," Coulter wrote in a column
published by the National Review Online on Sept. 13, 2001.

"We need somebody to put rat poison in Justice Stevens' creme brulee," Coulter
said in a Jan. 27 appearance at Philander
Smith College in Little
Rock, Ark., regarding Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. She later
explained she was joking about the justice, whose votes have upheld Roe v. Wade,
the landmark decision legalizing abortion.

**And my favorite of all...

"You want to be careful not to become just a blowhard," she
said in The Washington Post on October 16, 1998.

She should have taken her own advice.

Dems Pushing 'Fairness Doctrine' And Making a Huge Mistake

2007-06-28T07:50:00.000-05:00

John Kerry, among other democrats, is attempting to revive a law that was suspended (but left on the books, unfortunately) in 1987 which would require equal time for opposing viewpoints on radio and television. In a report by WND, Kerry is quoted as saying...

"These are the people that wiped out … one of the most profound changes in the
balance of the media is when the conservatives got rid of the equal time
requirements and the result is that they have been able to squeeze down and
squeeze out opinion of opposing views and I think its been a very important
transition in the imbalance of our public eye,"

What Kerry isn't telling you is that the FCC provision was suspended with the support of a Democrat-controlled Congress. He's also omitting the fact that the reason the provision was enacted in the first place was because there were, at the time, only three media networks from which a person could get information. Obviously, times have changed, and the average person has numerous sources available both in the television and radio arenas.

Here's the problem with what Kerry and other Dems are doing, though. They are attempting to get the federal government to take control of what information a person can gather from the much more modern media sources that exist now. Not only should the FCC NOT have that sort of power, but these same legislators would be screaming had the suggestion been made by a conservative legislator or organization.

Just as I suggested to Matt Barber in another post, if you don't like what you're seeing or hearing...change the channel or station. We're perfectly capable of seeking out as many differing viewpoints as we'd like, and the Dems are making a huge mistake by assuming that we can't.

Blair Wasn't Bush's 'Poodle'...He's "Much More Kind of Lofty"

2007-06-27T08:07:00.000-05:00

I love it when I don't have to work to make a joke about the Chimperor! Here's some of what Bush had to say about outgoing Prime Minister Tony Blair...

"I've heard he's been called Bush's poodle," the president said of Blair,
who has been heavily criticised in Britain for his decision to stand by the
United States first in its invasion
of Iraq in 2003, and later in its refusal to criticise Israel for its
bombing of Lebanon last summer.
"He's bigger than that. This is just
background noise, a distraction from big things. This kind of thing is just
silly ridicule and that's how I treat it."

Okay, so Blair is bigger than a poodle? I'm just saying, lol. It gets better, though...

"Tony's great skill, and I wish I had it, is that he's very articulate. I
wish I was a better speaker. This guy (Blair) can really ... he can talk," Bush
said.
"He's given some really good speeches here on US soil. He's a very
good writer, obviously, and he's a very good speaker too."
The president
acknowledged, however, that the pair had very different speaking styles: "He's
much more kind of lofty and eloquent than I am. I tend to be just pretty matter
of fact."

I'm trying extraordinarily hard to contain my laughter here, but I think that most elementary aged kids are more articulate than the Chimperor could ever hope to be. Oh, and George...it should be, "I wish I were a better speaker." Let' see...only about 18 more months of Dubya. Thank god!

Harry Potter Nonsense

2007-06-27T08:01:00.000-05:00

Apparently, the folks over at WingNutDaily have found yet another reason for the impending downfall of civilization...Harry Potter. Referring to another fundie author, WND says...

"But, contends author Steve Wohlberg, what many people don't know is that
when Harry Potter and his Firebolt whoosh off the shelf, he's not alone. A
victory for Harry Potter means a victory for Wicca, a religion that practices
various forms of witchcraft."

Because so many kids (and adults who are fans of the series) have embraced witchcraft since the first installment of the story, right? Wohlberg offers this in the way of supporting that assertion...

"Wohlberg's new book "Exposing Harry Potter and Witchcraft: The Menace
Beneath the Magic," asserts that "Harry Potter" purchases are often accompanied
at the sales counter with materials on Wicca. Increasing numbers of young
readers also frequent Wicca websites, cast "Love and Money Spells," and practice "white magic."

My question, as always...where's your proof, Mr. Wohlberg? You can't make sweeping comments like these, then not give so much as a link to a study or poll which would give your argument credibility.

WND tries to bolster its own article by adding the following...

"...the Vatican's top exorcist has condemned the series as leading children
to the devil.
Rev. Gabriele Amorth said: "You start off with Harry Potter,
who comes across as a likeable wizard, but you end up with the devil. There is
no doubt that the signature of the Prince of Darkness is clearly within these
books."

Again, that's why there's been such an upswing in Satanic rituals and ritualistic killings since the beginning of the series, right? Honestly, this same argument has been put forth with each new book and it's every bit as ridiculous this time as it has been in the past.

AFA Responds To Snopes.com

2007-06-26T09:26:00.000-05:00

**Warning...this post will be much more sarcastic than usual, LOL!

The American Family Association has posted a response to an article by Snopes.com, a site that debunks urban legends and general stupidity. The subject...hate crimes legislation and how it will virtually end civilization as we know it. The AFA states...

"American Family Association remains steadfast in our claim that if this
bill passes, we are confident that liberal judges will rush to make it a federal
crime to publicly criticize the homosexual lifestyle."

Well, that makes sense, right? After all, the hate crimes legislation that is already in place makes it a federal crime to use a racial slur in public, right? Absolute nonsense! It gets better, though...

"Can’t happen, you say? In Canada, one cannot legally criticize
homosexuality in public. Because of a “hate crimes” law that includes sexual
orientation, even the quoting of Scriptures that condemn homosexuality can be
illegal.
Because of “hate crimes” legislation in Sweden, a pastor was sentenced to
30 days in jail for preaching a sermon in which he said homosexuality is
wrong."

Ummm, have the folks at AFA forgotten what country we live in? Beyond that, have they ignored the fact that the government system of Canada is completely different from that here in the US? And since when does Swedish legislation have any bearing on the laws of this country? That argument is tantamount to saying that since Afghan women can be stoned to death for committing adultery, the same could happen here. It's just utter nonsense! AFA continues their whining...

"Snopes.com is reporting that the claims of AFA Action Alert, “as well as
the Action Alert’s bulleted references to court cases, news items, and current
legislation, are gross and misleading distortions of information.”

Well, I think we've established that their little "action alert" is, in fact, grossly misleading. Keep bloviating, AFA...the rest of us with functioning brains will continue to point out your flawed arguments (and I use the term "arguments" very loosely) and will shine an enormous spotlight on your twisted facts.

Tuesday's This and That

2007-06-26T07:30:00.000-05:00

**Paris is out of prison, and is claiming to have found God. I suppose among the many things a person could find while in prison, God is better than others, lol, but I'm not buying this...despite what Barbara Walters says. Paris got scared, and I imagine this newfound redemption may last for a week or two...we'll see.

**In case you haven't heard about it, two gay New Jersey students had their yearbook photo removed because it showed them kissing. There's been a whole bunch of hoopla over the entire censorship issue, but what I find most fascinating is that this morning, on WingNutDaily, there is a link where readers can "see the kiss." If you follow the link, you'll have to scroll down the page to find the "Photonetdaily" reference. Funny that such a bunch of homophobes would give such a link.

**That ridiculous 54 million dollar lawsuit filed over a pair of missing pants from a dry cleaner's was thrown out of court yesterday. I'm still laughing over what the presiding judge had to say about the case...

"A judge ruled Monday that no pair
of pants is worth $54 million, rejecting a lawsuit that took a dry
cleaner's promise of "Satisfaction Guaranteed" to its most litigious
extreme."

She had much more to say, so give the article a read.

**God, no...now Cheney is showing signs of "lunacy?" WND has an article up today discussing a NY Times article in which Cheney is described as...

"belligerent," "ideological" and "shadowy." Also "extralegal" and "dastardly."
And his position, writer Maureen Dowd says, is "bordering on lunacy."

With the Chimperor's behavior (see my previous posts), I say we bring in the next one in line...Speaker of the House Pelosi. I don't really like her all that much, but hell...she can't be any worse, right?

Bush's Supreme Court Rules And Consequently Violates The First Amendment

2007-06-25T12:49:00.000-05:00

A group by the name of "Freedom From Religion Foundation," has lost its suit against the various taxpayer funded, faith-based initiatives that the Chimperor has imposed upon us since he took office. According to the Associated Press...

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that ordinary taxpayers cannot challenge a
White House initiative that helps religious charities get a share of federal
money.

The 5-4 decision blocks a lawsuit by a group of atheists and
agnostics against eight Bush administration officials including the head of the
White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

The taxpayers' group, the Freedom From Religion Foundation Inc.,
objected to government conferences in which administration officials encourage
religious charities to apply for federal grants.

Let's just start with a little history lesson, shall we? The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution covers free speech, but one other thing it covers is the establishment of a single religion. That said, Bush's faith-based initiatives are clearly in violation of this provision in our constitution. Apparently, the folks who occupy the offices of the Supreme Court have either not gotten their copy of the Constitution, or they've chosen to to ignore it. Either way, this decision flies in the face of one of the most basic foundations of this country. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people of this country practicing their religions, but there is something seriously wrong with a President who tries to push fundamentalism on everyone...and handing out tax breaks for cooperating.

To the folks of Freedom From Religion Foundation, I say keep trying. I encourage everyone to donate or otherwise support their efforts.

Dear those who chastise gay existences:

2007-06-25T11:45:00.000-05:00

**Note: This is a repost of an excellently written letter by Jeremy Hooper of Good As You.

When this writer was younger, a very important person in his life made more than a few rules and judgments that were, even looking back through adult eyes, truly unjust. Never one to hold my tongue when I feel I've been wronged or misjudged, I always challenged these unfair regulations with passionate pleas and reasoned scrutiny. More often than not, my questioning the inappropriateness of said rules would lead to one claim: That I was "defensive."
In actuality, I would've had no reason to dispute the arguments brought forth, had the offensive not been so offensive. But in order for my sparring partner to forge a claim for the upper hand, the "defensive" line was dealt out freely. And you know what? It's really quite genius (if spineless). After all, if one protests such a claim, they are only said to be defensive about being defensive. It's basically a slightly more intellectual way of putting your fingers in your ears and saying, "La,la,la,la,la," as the intent of both is to shut up the other side without giving even a limited consideration that maybe, just maybe, they have some interesting and credible points to make.

My point: It is beyond weak-minded to bring forth a point of contention or debate with someone, and then turn around and call them sensitive or defensive when they have the "audacity" to challenge your claims. If you so something like condemn my life and love, I am going to call your words and actions into question. Unapologetically! Do not try and embolden your own stances by claiming that by eliciting a response, you have somehow "touched a nerve." That is a feeble tactic, which is generally used by the sorts of people who can dish it, but can't take it in return.

Cheers,

-Jeremy
Jeremy Hooper Good As You
www.goodasyou.org

I just couldn't have said it any better!

Elizabeth Edwards Supports Gay Marriage

2007-06-25T10:03:00.000-05:00

Finally! I was so hoping that my favorite candidate would come out (pardon the pun) and publicly support gay marriage. Okay, so it was the candidate...it was his wife, but hell, it's a start. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, in its report on the Gay Pride Parade, Elizabeth Edwards said the following...

"I don't know why somebody else's marriage has anything to do with me,''
she said. "I'm completely comfortable with gay marriage.''

Again...FINALLY...someone in the public/political arena has taken a stand and said what we've all been saying! The only thing that still bothers me is that Edwards, himself, still has issues with gay marriage...

"But that position differs markedly from her husband, the former North
Carolina Senator. Edwards said her husband, though having a '"deeply held belief
against any form of discrimination,'' supports gay civil unions, but does not
support gay marriage."

Elizabeth maintains that her husband is feeling conflicted because the idea of gay marriage goes against his "1950s upbringing." Hopefully, she'll have some influence and he'll change his position. Only time will tell, though.

A Little This and That...

2007-06-19T08:59:00.000-05:00

You know that even while on vacation I had to poke fun at a few things, right? So here we go...

**Doesn't this sound like fun? Those lovable little wingnuts are having themselves a 10th anniversary cruise. Forgive me...I'm trying to contain my laughter here.

http://sovereigncruises.org/wnd08/index.htm

**I can't make this stuff up. Apparently, an Illinois woman's mare kicked a stallion to death. Why, you ask? (Again, I'm trying to contain my laughter) The stallion was making unwanted sexual advances. ABC News reports...

"Ruth Kay, of Bartlett, Ill., said in court papers that a stallion named
Vinny violated her mare's "personal and private space" by resting his head on
the mare's rear end, a common romantic come-on among horses.
The mare, named
Gabby, kicked Vinny, eventually killing him, according to a lawsuit filed last
year by Vinny's owner, Collette Sorensen."

I'm an animal lover, and I certainly do not relish the stallion's death and I do realize that such horses can be worth quite a bit of money...but come on! This just sounds like the judge who sued the drycleaner's for losing his pants.

**Janet Folger apparently thinks she's Reagan now, LOL. In last Tuesday's article, she twisted one of Reagan's quotes to try and give Bush a swift kick in the balls...

"Mr. President, tear down that fence!"

If you want a good laugh, give it a read

**Run! The gays have infiltrated the evangelical society! Those Concerned Women For America have their panties in a knot over the idea that "homosexual temptations" are normal. Shocking, isn't it? Better yet, one pastor is making money off the idea through his book, The Gay Gospel. Check out the article, and you'll see Matt Barber's hands all over it, LOL.

**Bloomberg breaks with the elephants and positions himself as a possible independent spoiler. It's too early to tell if he'll be the Perot or Nader of '08, but the announcement does raise a few questions...the biggest being, which party will get hurt if he runs as an independent? Ah, I suppose it'll all boil down to who the party nominees end up being...right now, it's a toss up, in my opinion.

The Terminator Will Be On Vacation Next Week

2007-06-14T14:29:00.000-05:00

I'll be taking next week off...unless, of course, I find myself compelled to terminate someone, lol. While I'm gone, take some time to check on these things...

* Take my blog survey. You can follow the link at the top of my blog's front page, or go here. This will give me a better idea of who my readers are and where your interests lie.

* Visit the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and consider donating. They help protect the rights of bloggers and, by extension, the truly free press we now enjoy since the explosion of blogging.

* Help support The Terminator by either donating or simply signing my guestbook. There are several buttons there on the sidebar which will give you a chance to subscribe to this blog, rate what I've written, etc. Take a look and have some fun!

* Visit some of the blogs on my blogroll.

* Stop by the Human Rights Campaign's site and either donate or subscribe to some of their email publications. They've got alot to offer, and they'll help you stay on top of what's going on in the battle for equality.

My regular posting will resume on Monday, June 25...unless that urge to terminate strikes me sooner, that is.

General Pace Now Considered A Victim Of That Damn Homosexual Agenda

2007-06-14T13:49:00.000-05:00

When I first heard that General Peter Pace was retiring, I wondered how long it would take for the homosexual community to be blamed. It turns out I didn't have to wait long, because One News Now is reporting that a military watchdog group has done just that. You may remember that Gen. Pace made some comments calling homosexuality immoral, and made it clear that homosexuals shouldn't serve in the military, or, as Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness put it...

"General Pace made statements that were opposed by the homosexual activist
community, and that issue is why the administration chose not to fight for his
reconfirmation," says Donnelly. "The administration chose to switch rather than
fight -- and in this case, I think that is mistaken."

Ms. Donnelly couldn't be more wrong. Sure, the homosexual community was incensed over Gen. Pace's statements (I posted on them earlier), but let's consider the far more probable reasons for his replacement. First, while he's only been the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs for two years, he was the deputy chief for three years preceding his appointment. This means that he has been involved at the highest level with the failed strategies employed in Iraq. Second, Robert Gates, Rumsfeld's replacement as Defense Secretary, made it known early on that Pace wasn't someone he wished to work with. Further, it's just not that unusual for a newly appointed cabinet member to want to make personnel changes.

The first reason is probably why the White House decided it didn't want to fight the upcoming reconfirmation hearings in the Senate. Since the Democrats are in control, Pace's policies and strategies regarding Iraq would most definitely make his confirmation difficult, if not impossible. That's the fight the White House wanted to avoid, because it would shine a gigantic spotlight on Bush and his underlying agenda.

The fundies are using Pace's outrageous comments as a red herring and choosing this moment to divert attention from the Chimperor's agenda. They'd much rather blather about the fictitious homosexual agenda and all the evil that it entails then face the fact that their anointed son, Bush, has royally screwed up. Ms. Donnelly can continue to point the finger at the homosexual community, but anyone with a functioning brain and the capacity for logical thought should be able to see what is really going on with this new appointment.

**Previous post on General Pace can be found here.

FRC's Latest Marriage Hoopla

2007-06-14T08:21:00.000-05:00

You know, I'm not sure where to file this one because it's either a case of profound ignorance or a blatant attempt to sideline any further attempt at creating same sex marriage laws and upholding existing ones. The Family Research Council issued an alert entitled, "Taxation Without Representation," aimed at Massachusetts lawmakers and their scheduled vote today on whether to send an amendment to the voters. Here's a snippet of what the alert has to say...

"On Thursday, June 14, Legislators will be voting on whether to send the
amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman to the people of
Massachusetts. This is due to the fact that VoteOnMarriage.org collected 170,000 signatures, the
most ever collected in state history, in support of traditional
marriage."

"We encourage you and your friends to phone your state representatives and
senators today at (617) 722-2000. Your legislators must hear from you now.
Demand your right to be represented - demand your right to vote!"

Not everything that is made law is put to a public vote...that's the entire point behind electing representatives whether it's at the local, state or federal level. So the idea of equating this particular situation with taxation without representation is absurd, and every person who shows up today to protest is only going to make themselves look like ignorant fools.

Then there's the other side and another possibility for this 'alert.' Could the FRC be trying to garner support by perpetuating the notion that not being able to vote on this issue is tantamount to having a civil right revoked? It sounds like they are using the usual fear mongering tactic, however, since the Massachusetts lawmakers aren't doing anything they don't have the authority to do. Would they be equally incensed if a public vote wasn't offered on some referendum regarding a different issue...like acknowledging that the Bible is to be interpreted literally? Of course not, and they would be saying exactly what I'm saying when people expressed their outrage. This is nothing more than yet another attempt to undermine equality for the LGBT community.

Just For Fun...A Look At The AfterEllen.com Hot 100 List

2007-06-13T12:18:00.000-05:00

Readers who frequent AfterEllen.com were asked to nominate women for their own list of 'hotties,' and while I won't make my own list of 100, I will pick my personal top 10. Consider this an open thread and comment away!

Here's my top 10...

**Celebrities, of course, lol...my real number one is another story.

10. Jordana Brewster
9. Melinda Clarke
8. Lauren Lee Smith
7. Neve Campbell
6. Kate Beckinsale
5. Mia Kirshner
4. Sarah Shahi
3. Karina Lombard
2. Paula Patton
1. Jennifer Beals

A Gay Bomb?

2007-06-13T10:32:00.001-05:00

I picked this up from Jeremy over at Good As You, and it just puts an exclamation point on what many of the gay rights advocates have been saying about those opposed to our equality in this society. MSNBC has a video up where a supposed military plan to develop a chemical spray which would render enemy troops incapable of fighting by making them gay. You'll have to scroll down a bit to find the video listing, but it's definitely worth watching.

Jeremy had this to say about the concept as a whole, and I agree 100% with him...

"Homosexuality: Is there anything with which this country is more obsessed?
Turning people gay, speculating about who is and who is not gay, gay marriage --
Love or hate the 'moness, it's on people's minds and tongues more than just
about anything else in this world! It's just...bizarre.
Perhaps what we
really need is a bomb to force gay unfriendly people to turn their attention to
their own bodies and desires, rather than focusing so damn much on that which
they loathe, don't understand, or secretly crave! "

I couldn't have said it better. As usual, great work, Jeremy!

Same Sex Marriages Oppress Children?

2007-06-13T09:49:00.000-05:00

You read that right folks. According to Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, two people of the same sex who want to make a commitment to one another through marriage will inevitably oppress any children the couple may produce by not providing them with both a mother and a father...

"Meanwhile, as homosexuals seek to claim marriage as a civil right of any
combination of people, they risk oppressing the youngest among us. One of the
primary civil rights honored by marriage is that of children to have a loving
mother and father. To deny them that benefit is not Loving at all."

Where is the outrage over heterosexual couples who end up leaving children with just one parent? If the crux of this argument is to be based on the denial of civil rights to children according to the parenting situation, then where is the outrage? The answer is that Mr. Perkins is groping for an argument against that which he loathes...plain and simple.

WND's Shapiro Misses The Point...Again

2007-06-13T09:35:00.000-05:00

I'm going to warn all of you, first, that this wingnut article is so unhinged that it's going to take a while to wade through it all...so bear with me, lol.

Benjamin Shapiro has written a rather lengthy diatribe that starts out calling the "American left," godless...

"There is a curious void in the modern American left. That void is the
empty spot where God should be. The American left – and the Democratic Party, as
its political representative – has worked tirelessly over the course of decades
to cast God from the public square, all the time disclaiming their mission by
invoking "tolerance" for all beliefs."

Right off the bat, I have to say to Mr. Shapiro that there is no "mission," and our constant mention of being tolerant of all beliefs has no underlying agenda or hidden meaning. I need to point out, also, that by making this opening statement, Mr. Shapiro has positioned himself and his cohorts as the intolerant ones attempting to force their personal belief system upon everyone else. It gets better, though, as Benjamin continues...

"Where's God in the liberal moral equation? Nowhere to be found – and with
good reason. The American left now stands for the wholesale displacement of
traditional religious morality and the utter rejection of the Divine. "We
believe with certainty that an ethical life can be lived without religion,"
atheistic commentator Christopher Hitchens writes in his new best-seller, "God
Is Not Great." Hitchens, consciously or unconsciously, speaks for the liberal
movement."

Like CWA's Matt Barber, Shapiro has embraced the, "where we go one, we go all," philosophy by essentially stating that Hitchens' book speaks for every liberal. True, some of us have either rejected the notion of "God" or have embraced another form of religion...but that is the right of every human being, is it not? His insistence that we all should embrace his idea of "traditional religious morality" is the biggest problem with these fundamental conservatives. Shapiro then refers to a Gallup poll, without giving any link or notation so readers can check the poll's validity, and expands upon the godlessness of liberals...

"A recent Gallup poll showed overwhelming liberal support for homosexual
activity (83 percent), premarital sex (89 percent), illegitimacy (83 percent),
abortion (67 percent) and doctor-assisted suicide (73 percent). Liberals support
polygamy, adultery and cloning humans at an exponentially higher rate than
conservatives. The top moral issue on the liberal agenda seems to be global warming. ("It is a moral issue, it is
an ethical issue," spouts Al Gore.) Liberals seem far less comfortable
discussing the moral implications of a precipitate withdrawal from Iraq."

Notice Benjamin's blatant misuse of the word "support" in this paragraph. Since I can't check the poll to which he's referring, I can't make any definitive statements other than to say that I highly doubt the questions were posed in such a manner as to suggest that the person being polled "supported" any of the issues mentioned. This is simply Shapiro's attempt to link liberals to all that is evil, and I'm surprised that pedophilia wasn't mentioned. I mean, everyone knows that liberals...and homosexuals in particular...want nothing more than to engage in polygamous relationships with minors while producing illegitimate children and cloning embryos in our secret laboratories, right? As to his passing comment about Iraq (which seemed incredibly random and misplaced), I wonder if Mr. Shapiro has given any thought to the moral implication of continuing to send our troops to die in what has become the Chimperor's own quagmire and the civil war that has ensued as a result?

Ben goes on for a few more paragraphs basically continuing to link liberals to what he believes will be the downfall of civilization, while using as many five and ten dollar words as possible once again. He concludes with this...

"We have witnessed four decades of a punctuated slide down to the ant heap,
thanks to the morality of those who reject the possibility of the soul and the
righteousness of the Divine moral mission. But it is not too late. It is never
too late, as long as the Divine spark smolders in the human heart – the spark
that is always ready to burst into a renewed flame of enlightened morality. And
no amount of liberal obfuscation and atheistic bluster can extinguish that
spark."

Mr. Shapiro, the human soul will thrive whether your idea of religion and religious morality is a part of that soul or not. The cynicism and jadedness you speak of is not a result of rejecting your mores, it's a result of witnessing the infighting among religious groups, the proselytizing and the profound arrogance with which you continually beat people. Since you are so obsessed with "the Divine," allow me to remind you of a few of his words...

* "When they kept on questioning Him, He straightened up and said to them,'If
any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.'"
John 8:7 (New International Version) Obviously, "He," is Jesus and he was
speaking to a group of teachers and Pharisees who intended to stone to death a
woman who had been caught in adultery.

Here's the painful truth for you, Mr. Shapiro...you're not a perfect person and neither am I. So when you become perfect and "without sin," then, maybe, you can tell the rest of us how we should live and what moral system we should adopt. Until then, however...try to at least pretend you're not the arrogant nutcase that you are.

UPDATE: Montgomery County MD School Board Passes New Curriculum

2007-06-13T09:09:00.000-05:00

In a report today from the Washington Post, the Montgomery County School Board did approve the unnecessarily controversial addition to middle and high school health curriculum. The article did take a bit of a swipe at the school board...

"Much of the nation is moving toward an "abstinence-only" approach to sex
education, which emphasizes the advantages of confining sex to marriage. But
school systems in liberal communities are heading in the opposite direction,
teaching more about sexual orientation, as well as contraception and abstinence,
in what is termed "comprehensive" sex education."

I suppose the generally conservative staff of the Post sees the mere mention of the fact that people have varying sexual orientations is enough to earn the board the label of "liberal." Personally, I think the board acted responsibly in adopting this curriculum. Congratulations, Montgomery County...you've made a huge step in the right direction.

Barber Can't Protect His Own Children?

2007-06-12T08:58:00.000-05:00

After reading his comments today, I'm beginning to wonder if Matt Barber thinks the FCC is responsible for the moral protection of his children. Referring to a ruling yesterday by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Barber said...

"Matt Barber, Concerned Women for America’s (CWA) Policy Director for
Cultural Issues, said, “With this ruling the Second Circuit has essentially
declared a profanity free-for-all on primetime network television, a time when
children are most likely to be viewing. The court ruled that it was ‘arbitrary
and capricious’ for the FCC to restrict the ‘fleeting’ use – whatever that means
– of the harshest of expletives, including the F-word. The Fox Television
Network has said, and the court apparently agreed, that the FCC regulation,
‘serves no purpose other than to chill artistic expression in violation of the
First Amendment.’ So it now ‘chills artistic expression’ to place even the most
reasonable and limited of protective barriers between a four-year-old and the
F-word on daytime television? Just when you think we can’t sink any lower as a
society, we do.”

Ummm, Matt...my four-year-old isn't watching this programming, and neither is my six-year-old, for that matter. If yours are, then you have far bigger issues to worry about than any court ruling. The Court was absolutely correct in upholding the First Amendment rights in this case, I believe, and it's absurd to think or assume that any Court or other federal agency should be responsible for guarding anyone's child against hearing an expletive. That's the job of the parents, and I find myself wondering...once again...if your remote control is somehow disabled or if you've forgotten how to turn the television off altogether.

The article goes on to say...

"CWA is encouraging Congress to address this issue. Networks need to be
held accountable for inappropriate language on live programming. Small children
should not be exposed to such “artistic expression” on television."

I think this one will have to fall under the, "Well, DUH," category. Of course small children shouldn't be exposed to the sort of language the CWA is so concerned about. For all the bloviating this particular organization has done about parental rights and privileges, it is astounding to me that they seem to want someone else to take the wheel on this subject. So astounding, in fact, that I wonder if CWA might not be using the idea of poor, innocent children being subjected to such foul language as a way of controlling what everyone can and can't watch. But that can't be true, can it? It's the homosexual community that is attempting to hijack American culture, right? Once again, you've been caught trying to manipulate society so that it reflects your own mores and values.

CWA needs to come clean on this and admit that their goal is to force Americans to adopt their ideals and morals. The article lists contact information on this subject, and I think we should tell them that we're not fooled by this tactic and would like them to stop constantly pointing the finger at the LGBT community for forcing or trying to implement some 'agenda.' It's obvious that CWA's agenda is being pushed here, and nothing more. Here's the contact information...

For Information Contact:Jennifer Fedor(202) 488-7000media.cwfa.org

Give 'em hell!

'Pro-Homosexual Curriculum' Causes an Uproar in Maryland

2007-06-11T12:31:00.000-05:00

The Family Research Council has issued one of their infamous action alerts pertaining to the Montgomery County School Board in Maryland and their meeting scheduled for tomorrow. The subject of this particular action alert...a vote that would approve a new sex education curriculum for middle and high school students. Here's a little of what FRC had to say...

"The Montgomery County (MD) Public Schools apparently remain determined to
spread pro-homosexual propaganda throughout the school system--ASAP. The
Montgomery County Board of Education has scheduled a vote on the final approval
of new pro-homosexual sex education curriculum for next Tuesday, June 12. The
new curriculum replaces one that was thrown out by a federal judge in 2005, but
exhibits a number of the same grave flaws, including:

Unlawful "viewpoint discrimination" which excludes all mention of the
harms of homosexual behavior and the fact that most Americans disapprove of
it;
Omission of important data concerning the health risks of specific sexual
acts--even though a petition of 270 physicians urged it be included;
The
false assertion that homosexual orientation is "innate and
Discriminatory
exclusion of "ex-gays."

My, my...where to begin? First, I had to suppress a chuckle at the use of the phrase, "grave flaws," because it's just a ridiculous overstatement...but I digress. But let's take a look at their specific gripes.

"Unlawful "viewpoint discrimination" which excludes all mention of the
harms of homosexual behavior and the fact that most Americans disapprove of
it"

Notice, firstly, that their is no mention to any polls or studies to back up their contention that most Americans are wallowing in disapproval. Aside from that, with all the discussion about the Chimperor's nominee for Surgeon General and his assertion that homosexual behavior is harmful, I find it convenient for FRC to mention this as a reason for opposing the district's curriculum. Further, there are many heterosexual behaviors that are harmful...yet I don't hear anyone from the various fundie camps screaming about that.

"Omission of important data concerning the health risks of specific sexual
acts--even though a petition of 270 physicians urged it be included"

How many physicians do you think there are in this country? A petition garnering the endorsement of 270 doctors is laughable. Aside from that, what business is it of anyone what goes on in a private citizen's bedroom? This point of theirs is absurd.

"The false assertion that homosexual orientation is "innate
and
Discriminatory exclusion of "ex-gays."

Again with the whole "false assertion" nonsense, I see. A person's sexual orientation is innate and, more than that, a part of their identity. The entire "ex-gay" movement is another issue entirely that would need another post, but I'll say that if you look into what these people are preaching...you'll come to the conclusion that it boils down to people choosing to ignore their identity and nothing more.

So, the FRC doesn't want middle and high school kids to have this basic understanding about homosexuality, nor do they want them to feel safe enough to discuss their own sexuality. They've issued this alert, and I think it's only appropriate to issue one myself. Here's the email address provided by the FRC...

boe@mcpsmd.org

Send in your own message, telling them that this curriculum is not only necessary, but it's also not the portrait of doom that the FRC would like for everyone to believe it is. Kids have to understand the truth about homosexuals to avoid the types of hate crimes and ostracization that occurs in schools today. It's as simple as that, and I applaud the Montgomery County school board for having the guts attempt to go forward with implementing this curriculum.

**If you'd like another, more detailed, look at the proposed curriculum (albeit from a rather negative standpoint), take a look at this site.

Friday's This and That

2007-06-08T11:21:00.000-05:00

Consider this an open thread and add your thoughts...

* Bush was confined to his hotel room due to a stomach illness according to an AP report . Maybe he didn't want to continue the family tradition of vomiting then passing out in front of foreign leaders, but at least German Chancellor Merkel won't have to worry about being groped...for today, that is, lol.

* Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council has come up with another reason to be against same sex marriage, and you won't believe it. It seems Tony is all upset about homosexual partners sharing a common, married name...

"Now, state leaders are hoping to elevate the status of these relationships
by making it easier to "appear" married. As Assemblyman Van Tran (R) told
reporters, "Name change is a big, symbolic, important step for marrying a man
and a woman... It's one of the longest held traditions for the woman to take the
name of her husband's family... I just don't see any hard, compelling reason to
change that." Liberal activists certainly do. It puts them one step closer to
making traditional marriage completely irrelevant."

The state in question is California, by the way, and did anyone else miss that day of homosexual orientation? I didn't realize that wanting to share your partner's name, taking on that additional identity made any one else's marriage irrelevant. If I could just get my hands on a copy of that damn agenda of ours...

* Matt Barber's television remote must be broken too, since he has decided to complain about the language on various tv programs. Matt specifically mentions award broadcasts which are, for the most part, live...a fact that is usually made very clear in the advertisements before each show. My solution is the same as it was in my earlier post...change the channel if you don't like it, Matt.

Scarborough Said Something Stupid...Nothing More

2007-06-08T08:48:00.000-05:00

Joe Scarborough's stupid remark about Fred Thompson's wife working a "pole" has become the topic of discussion over at CWA. According to Wendy Wright...

“Joe Scarborough’s banter reduces an accomplished and respectable woman to
a ‘bimbo’ and reflects attempts to mainstream porn into every day culture.
Pornography shapes people’s view of women – and not just the women in the
pictures – as objects to be used for sexual pleasure. The proliferation of
pornography and strip clubs does have an effect. It results in men viewing women
as sexual objects instead of capable and intelligent human beings. Mainstream
culture, from TV to clothes, has become saturated not with flirtatious sex, but
crass, debasing, dehumanizing porn that encourages judging women by porn
standards.”
“Scarborough’s comments reflect and reinforce the normalization
of porn. Scarborough owes Mrs. Thompson an apology.”

Wendy's right...Mr. Scarborough said something really, really stupid, and if I were Fred Thompson, I'd want a private word or two with him for saying what he did. But once again, CWA has taken what was an admittedly asinine thing to say and turned it into something else. In this case, Scarborough's comments are proof positive that the whole of society has become obsessed with porn.

If we were to follow this rather jagged line of logic, the derogatory comments made by actor Isaiah Washington of Grey's Anatomy would be proof positive of society's acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. What? You mean that doesn't make any sense either? I didn't think I remembered CWA taking that stance when members of the homosexual community were defamed, but you can't blame a girl for trying! You might need to go back to the drawing board on this one Wendy, because we're not buying it!

Pharmacist's Refusing To Do Their Jobs?

2007-06-08T08:38:00.000-05:00

A young woman, facing the very real possibility that she might have become pregnant following her previous night's activity, goes to her pharmacy to get the morning after pill. She didn't intend to get pregnant, and doesn't want to have to face the decision about abortion later, so she thinks she's doing the responsible thing, by preventing this possible pregnancy. Little does she know that the pharmacist has his/her own moral objection to the idea of the morning after pill (MAP), and refuses to make it available. Would that outrage you? It outrages me too, but not the Concerned Women for America. Wendy Wright, who seems to be on a roll today, had this to say about proposed legislation which would fine pharmacists who refuse to make the MAP available...

“Pharmacists are professionals, not vending machines. The FDA has
been known to make mistakes in approving drugs, and doctors have made mistakes
in prescribing. Pharmacists provide a line of defense to ensure that patients’
lives and health are protected and can make patients aware of ethical concerns.
Yet this bill would punish pharmacists up to $500,000 for acting on their
ethical duty.”
“This punitive bill would bankrupt pharmacists for doing what
they believe protects people from harm. We need pharmacists with strong
convictions about protecting life and health, but this bill would drive people
with such convictions out of the pharmaceutical profession – which would be
detrimental to all patients.”
“This bill is promoted by ardent abortion
activists yet it would criminalize ‘Freedom of choice’ by forcing people to act
against their beliefs.”

So, would the story be the same if it were the drug Vioxx or any of the other recalled pharmaceuticals? If a pharmacist who had learned of problems with a prescription medication took it upon himself/herself to refuse to fill legitimate prescriptions, we would be hearing the exact opposite from Ms. Wright and her cohorts. There would be a massive uproar over pharmacists deciding that they know better than a patient's physician. Neither scenario should happen, because pharmacists are supposed to fill legitimate prescriptions and provide FDA approved remedies of all types...period. Ms. Wright should think about that before she goes to her pharmacist with a prescription from her doctor.

So...Gumbel Can't Express His Opinion?

2007-06-08T08:30:00.000-05:00

I just love it when fundies get all upset about having one of their own spoken to in a derogatory manner, and I can't believe this story is still around. Back in June of 2000, Bryant Gumbel referred to fundie maniac Robert Knight , who now heads the Media Research Council, as a "fucking idiot." Granted, Gumbel brought some of this on himself when he bragged about the comment while filling in on the Regis and Kelly Show yesterday, but I am just amazed at the double standard...

"Concerning Mr. Gumbel's recent remarks, MRC President Brent Bozell
commented: "Bryant Gumbel is a crude, left-wing reporter who has now confirmed
what we documented and CBS denied for seven years-CBS claimed 'it is unclear
what the comment was'-and for which Mr. Gumbel refused to apologize. Mr.
Gumbel's words and lack of decency and decorum, then and now and as confirmed on
the broadcast today, show that he is grossly biased and sees absolutely nothing
wrong in smearing people he disagrees with politically as blankety-blank
idiots."

Wow, I wonder what Mr. Bozell would say about comments directed at the LGBT community by various fundies and wingnuts? I sincerely doubt we'd hear him questioning the decency or decorum of Peter LaBarbera, Janet Folger or Matt Barber regarding any of their comments toward LGBT individuals. But then again, I'm probably confusing the issue far too much with fact.

Westboro's Shirley Phelps Roper Gets Arrested

2007-06-07T09:40:00.000-05:00

I was wondering how long it would take for something like this to happen. Since the members of Westboro Baptist, especially Shirley (daughter of church leader Fred Phelps), almost always involve their children in the various protests they conduct, it was only a matter of time...

"Shirley Phelps-Roper, 49, of Topeka, Kan., was arrested on suspicion of
contributing to the delinquency of a minor."

I think "suspicion" is putting it mildly, but here's what her son was seen doing during a protest in Nebraska...

"Phelps-Roper acknowledged that she allowed her 10-year-old son, Jonah, to
stand on the flag — an action that she says is protected by the U.S.
Constitution."

Honestly, she's right...that action, I believe, does fall under the free speech allowances of the Constitution, but does anyone really think a 10 year old child needs to be involved in such demonstrations? It's one thing for an adult to stomp on the U.S. flag in protest, but to involve a child in such behavior (and this is just one example of how the children of church members have been involved) is unconscionable. Shirley is out on bond and is, of course, going to battle the charges against her...

"Phelps-Roper said church members have protested at more than 280 military
funerals in 43 states since June 15, 2005, and that Tuesday marked her church’s
first arrest at a funeral."

I say it's about time someone was arrested. Not for protesting, as that is their right, but for involving their children in these protests. I refuse to give Westboro a link, but you can Google them and find their site. Take a look at some of what their children have been involved in and tell me if you don't think it's abusive. I don't throw that word around lightly, but to have your child hold signs and say hateful things to people is abusive. I hope this isn't the last arrest, and I hope it leads to the end of Westboro youth participating in their parents' protests.

Are Your Remote Controls Broken?

2007-06-07T08:15:00.000-05:00

I suppose there's been a conspiracy surrounding the television remote controls of all WingNuts...they're suddenly not functioning! Quick...someone alert the conspiracy police and stop the madness! What? You mean there's nothing wrong with their remote controls at all? Well, to read this morning's article, you'd think that the liberals of the world had snuck in and disabled them...

"A new decision from a federal appeals court in New York has tossed out a
rule by the Federal Communications Commission that cracked down
on "fleeting expletives" on television airwaves, and a media monitor says it's
another setback in the battle for clean entertainment.
"Vulgarity has
literally exploded," Robert Peters, chief of Morality in Media, told WND."

Perhaps it's not the remote controls that are the problem...perhaps it's those sneaking liberals coming in and holding guns to the heads of innocent fundies, forcing them to watch programs they don't find appropriate because of those damn "fleeting expletives." No? Ah, so these fundies are scanning the networks and deliberately inflicting this offensiveness on themselves? Come on WingNuts...read your own article and pay attention...

"The networks were pleased with the ruling. "Viewers should be allowed to
determine for themselves and their families … what is appropriate viewing for
their home," said Scott Grogin, a spokesman from Fox."

Pick up your remote and change the channel if you find yourself offended by the program you're watching, but don't try to tell me or anyone else what should or shouldn't be aired.

Wow...could this be yet another example of the fundies trying to force their ideals on the rest of society? And here I thought that it was that ever elusive homosexual agenda that was pushing wholistic changes on society. What was I thinking? Nice try, WND, but once again you've been caught.

Wednesday's This and That...

2007-06-06T09:21:00.000-05:00

Feel free to add to this and give me your thoughts.

* The G-8 summit is beginning today in Germany, and aside from the usual protests, I sincerely hope the Chimperor keeps his hands to himself this time. You'll remember the less than appropriate and impromptu backrub he gave to the German Chancellor at an earlier G-8 meeting...hopefully Chancellor Merkel has brought extra security this time, LOL.

* I suppose I should give CWA some credit for allowing a woman to write this very brief account of the NH Civil Unions Bill, rather than letting Matt Barber hog all the press as usual, lol, but what Heather Hogue wrote was rather weak. Her headline suggests that the NH bill, "targets marriage," but she makes no attempt to show how, exactly, the bill compromises any heterosexual marriages...a problem most fundies have when they try to attack these civil union and same sex marriage laws.

* The American Family Association is all upset about commercials being run by Hardee's and Carl's Jr. Since I don't have either of these restaurants in my area, I had to follow the link (provided by the AFA, by the way) to see what they were referring to as, "sleazy." To the AFA I say...if you don't like it, turn the channel!

Another Day...Another Dose of Matt Barber Ridiculousness

2007-06-06T08:42:00.000-05:00

I have run across a few truly pitiful arguments, but this one from Matt Barber of Concerned Women For America is by far one of the worst. In addressing the eHarmony lawsuit, Barber opens with the following...

"Luigi is living the American dream. He’s finally saved up enough money to
come to America — the land of freedom and opportunity — to pursue his lifelong
goal of owning and operating his own pizzeria. Based on his grandmother’s old
family recipe, his pizza pie quickly becomes known as the best in town.
Bruce is hungry. As he strolls down the boulevard, he decides he’s got a
taste for Chinese food. Bruce walks past three Chinese restaurants and goes into
Luigi’s. Bruce has seen too many episodes of The Sopranos, so he doesn’t like Italians.
“I’ll have an order of Egg Foo Yung,” Bruce says to Luigi. “Egg Foo who?” Luigi
replies. Bruce promptly sues Luigi for unspecified damages, seeking an
injunction to force him to add Egg Foo Yung to his menu."

Um...what the hell is Matt talking about here? I suppose I can loosely see the point he's trying to make...Bruce sues Luigi because he doesn't offer the food he wants to order. But how, exactly, is that the same or even close to the same as an organization refusing to acknowledge the dating needs of an entire segment of the population? I've established in an earlier post that I don't agree with the suits being filed against eHarmony, but as I read on, I discovered that Matt is talking less about the actual lawsuits and more about this continual insistence that homosexuals hate Christians. He says as much in his subheadline...

"They don’t like hearing the Good News that a Redeemer loves them so much
He offers us freedom from our sin."

He adds to that in a subsequent paragraph...

"Just as Bruce doesn’t like Italians, many on the left don’t like
Christians. They don’t like that Christians believe that there are clear lines
of demarcation between right and wrong. They don’t like that both the Bible and
natural law unequivocally condemn homosexual behaviors as immoral and
disordered. They don’t like hearing the Good News that a Redeemer loves them so
much He offers us freedom from our sin. And for that reason, they don’t like Dr.
Neil Clark Warren, and they don’t like eHarmony. Oh, and the fact that Dr. Warren is a
Christian with ties to Dr. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family — well, that just drives
‘em plain batty."

And there we have it, folks. Barber spouts the same nonsense we've heard time and time again and reinforces the idea that homosexuals must...simply must...conform to his idea of what Christianity is. In an age where the various factions of Baptists alone can't agree on some of the most basic tenants of their faith, I find it humorous that Mr. Barber seems to have all the spiritual answers a person might need. He'd probably be shocked to know that there are many homosexuals who are Christians...believing they too are God's creation and, in acknowledging their belief that God makes no mistakes, practice their Christianity without any reservations. Since that entire idea would clash with his entire belief system, I would bet that he'd come out with an attack on them as well...despite their shared Christianity.

We really don't care who Dr. Warren's friends are...even if one happens to be another individual with whom we disagree. But the difference between Barber and his cohorts and us is that we aren't trying to change who they are or deny them any of the freedoms they currently enjoy. Please, feel free to disagree, Matt...but don't try to force us to conform to your idea of Christianity.

Call It What You Want...Edwards Is Telling The Truth

2007-06-06T08:33:00.000-05:00

WingNut writer, Benjamin Shapiro, has written a rather wordy condemnation of John Edwards and the comments he made during Sunday night's debate. Shapiro referred to Edwards, in the text of his headline, as a, "slimy demagogue," and tries to solidify his position by addressing the comments Edwards made concerning the war in Iraq...

"But it was John Edwards, outflanking Obama, who provided the most
memorable moment of the evening, summing up nearly six years of liberal thought
with a single paragraph:
"[W]hat this global war on terror bumper sticker –
political slogan, that's all it is, it's all it's ever been – was intended to do
was for George Bush to use it to justify everything he does: the ongoing war in
Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, spying on Americans, torture. None of those things
are OK. They are not the United States of America."

Call Edwards what you like, but he was the only one who had the temerity to speak the truth on the subject of Bush's war and the atrocities that have resulted from his blatant stubbornness. What originally was, I believe, a concerted effort to bring those responsible for the attacks on our homeland to justice has become a quagmire, perpetuated by suppositions and outright lies told by the Chimperor and other members of his administration. Shapiro continues...

"Of course, Edwards' aphoristic denunciation is itself paradigmatic
bumper-sticker politics. His strategy is sloganeering. And sadly enough, his
pithy shallowness mirrors the Democratic base far more than Clinton's newfound
moderation or Obama's faux profundity. If everyone who slaps a "War Is Not The
Answer" sticker on their Prius votes for Edwards, the charlatan from North Carolina could breeze to the
Democratic nomination."

Was Mr. Shapiro trying to win some contest for using as many "five and ten dollar words" as possible? Or, was his word choice simply a distraction from the "pithy" argument he was making? The latter is most likely true, because what Shapiro said was simply ignorant. Edwards likened the war to a bumper-sticker slogan, but he never created a slogan or in any way suggested that he even needed a slogan. Frankly, Mr. Shapiro missed the point entirely.

Here, Shapiro shows that he knows very little about those who support Edwards...all the while using his dictionary to try and prove otherwise...

"By contrast, Edwards' supporters are the true blue, the loyal foundation.
They are the disappointed Deaniacs and Ned Lamont backers. They are the "Bush
Lied, Kids Died" contingent, the "No War For Oil" crowd. They are the Michael
Moore followers, the Al Gore worshippers. They are the vapid but solid core of a
radical party – a party that has risen to power by obfuscating its radicalism
and opening its arms to Americans disaffected with President Bush."

Anyone who talks with an Edwards supporter, something Shapiro probably neglected to do, would know that Al Gore is the absolute last person we want to see in the White House. Anytime the idea that Gore should make another run comes up, the response from Edwards supporters has been the same..."Please don't." My other problem with this paragraph is Shapiro's assertion that questioning the motives of our president and pointing out the problems with the way in which our president conducts war operations automatically wins us the label of, "a radical party." It's the duty of Americans to bring forth such questions, and part of what being a responsible citizen means. There's absolutely nothing radical about it...plain and simple. The fact that more and more Americans are realizing the depth of the Bush administration's deception is simply a sign that the citizenry is paying attention.

Shapiro and others who share his obvious distaste for the truth can, and probably will, continue to denigrate Edwards for his unwavering stance on this particular issue. Hopefully, Americans will continue to recognize that Edwards is simply telling the truth.

Family Research Council Chimes In On NH Civil Unions

2007-06-05T09:23:00.000-05:00

I suppose that Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council has decided that if he and his organization continue to insist that homosexuality is a choice and ignore all evidence to the contrary, he'll wake up one day and find that his fight against civil rights for LGBT individuals has succeeded. Fortunately for the residents of New Hampshire, Mr. Perkins' disillusioned ideas haven't gotten a foothold...something that has Tony confused about the civil rights aspect of this newly signed law...

"Homosexuals have experienced disapproval, but they have not endured
centuries of violence, abuse, segregation, and slavery. Unlike ethnicity,
homosexual behavior is a choice. A person can choose to either participate in
homosexual behavior or not to participate. An African-American cannot choose to
participate in having black skin; they are born with it. Lynch's suggestion that
homosexuals who want to marry are oppressed or victims of discrimination is
simply outrageous. No person is being denied the right to marry. They are
simply asked to meet the core requirement (since civilization began) that both
genders be present. "

I'll grant him the fact that segregation and slavery haven't been issues with which homosexuals have been faced, but violence and abuse have most certainly been predominant issues. Anyone remember the Nazi concentration camps? While the Jews were certainly the largest group incarcerated and murdered, homosexuals were also persecuted and even had their own emblem placed on their camp uniforms...a pink triangle. That's just one example, but any attempt at researching history will reveal other examples of persecution. I realize that Mr. Perkins is sticking firmly to his contention that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, but his assertion that civilization has ordained this as some sort of "core requirement" smacks of the same, "the sky is falling," fear mongering we've heard so much of.

Simply put, no one is out to somehow annul or otherwise diminish any heterosexual marriages, and refusing homosexual couples the same rights and responsibilities that come with marriage is discrimination. There's just no other way to look at it.

Unhinged Janet Folger Reaches a New Maturity Low

2007-06-05T09:01:00.000-05:00

If it's Tuesday, then it means there will be another in a long list of idiotic rants from the completely unhinged and bigoted Janet Folger of Faith2Action, posted on WingNutDaily. Today's tirade reaches a new low in the maturity department, though, as Janet puts the opponents of eHarmony in her crosshairs...

"I'm suing gayHarmony for discrimination.
That's right. Because without
having checked, I'm certain there isn't a single homosexual site or publication
that offers what I'm looking for:
A heterosexual pro-life Christian who
likes long walks on the beach and wants to help fight unequal justice mandated
in the speech-restricting "hate crimes" bill.
Those bigoted heterophobes.
Before you call the thought police, I don't really think the homosexual
publications should be forced to cater to me. But unfortunately, that tolerance
is not reciprocated. Lesbian Linda Carlson of San Francisco is suing eHarmony
because she can't find a date. They don't offer a category for "lesbian bullies
seeking women," so she wants to bully eHarmony until they do."

Here's where I am forced to switch to speaking directly to Ms. Folger.

If Ms. Carlson is dubbed a bully by you for suing eHarmony, then what, exactly, would that make you, Janet? And before you launch into a grand tirade, no doubt fueled by a wealth of righteous indignation, remember you opened the door. I realize that your statement was most likely tongue-in-cheek, but if you're going to wage a campaign against hate speech, you might want to consider avoiding referring to those whom you oppose as 'bullies.'

Further, your indirect, although not overlooked, connection between homosexuals and pedophiles is something with which I take exception. This assertion made by you and your other fundie comrades is, to use a term you might recognize from one of your other rants, "the real hate speech." Contrary to the fictional homosexual agenda you and your buddies cling to, we are not out to act inappropriately with a child or make any attempt to convert them. Nor do we have any interest in converting or otherwise enticing you to become a lesbian. Since it's long been maintained that a person's sexual orientation is a biological identity and not something we woke up one day a decided to 'be,' these constant assertions only serve to make you look foolish.

Personally, I don't agree with Ms. Carlson's decision to sue, and I prefer to look at eHarmony's decision to discriminate as an opportunity for other sites to blossom. By the same token, however, I can't agree with anyone's attempt to distort or in any way silence the voice of another...something you, Ms. Folger, are guilty of on a regular basis. You can feel free to disagree with the way a person lives their life, and you are welcome to shout about your objections as loudly as you wish...just as I and others like me are as free to do the same. That's what free speech is all about. The difference between you and me, Janet, is that while I don't expect you to agree with me, you all but demand that I change my viewpoint...my identity...just because you say so. That, Ms. Folger, is something I cannot quietly ignore, for it marks the difference between the free speech rights you claim to fight for and the hate speech you so vehemently abhor.

So, Janet, try to grow up a little before next Tuesday's article...please.

Dems Battle In Second Debate...More Monkeys?

2007-06-04T08:34:00.000-05:00

My personal favorite amongst a less than stellar group of candidates on both sides of the political aisle, John Edwards, got in a few excellent jabs on Hilary and Obama last night. Unfortunately, after reviewing the answers to the questions posed last night and watching video of the debate, I fear there are quite a few monkeys on the Democratic side of the aisle as well.

Edwards went on the offensive early, attacking Clinton and Obama on their votes in the senate, supporting additional funding for the war in Iraq but without a timetable for troop withdrawal...

"They went quietly to the floor of the Senate, cast the right vote, but
there is a difference between leadership and legislating," Edwards said.
"Senator Clinton and Senator Obama did not say anything about how they were
going to vote until they appeared on the floor of the Senate and voted. They
were among the last people to vote."

Both Senators shot back, of course, and I was disappointed that Edwards didn't fully articulate the meaning of his statement about the war on terror becoming a bumper sticker slogan. He repeated the phrase three times, but never really brought his point home. The war in Iraq, dubbed the "war on terror" by the Bush administration, is no longer a war on terror...plain and simple. It's that fact that Edwards is trying to bring to the forefront with his bumper sticker reference. Unfortunately, the other candidates appear to be inclined to continue funding the war under the guise of supporting our troops and getting them what they need. What Edwards has maintained, and what I think keeps getting lost in all these war funding debates, is that the best way to protect our troops is to get them the hell out of the middle of another country's civil war and bring them home.

Honestly, until the other candidates are willing to have a serious discussion on the issues of war funding, gay rights and human rights in general, we'll continue to see nothing but more politically minded monkeys standing on the debate stages.

LaBabs Whines...Again

2007-06-04T08:25:00.000-05:00

Apparently, it's perfectly acceptable for Peter LaBarbera to spout as much hate as he wants, but not so acceptable for anyone to call him on it. Since it's short and ridiculous, lol, I've pasted the entire article below...

"By Peter LaBarbera
It looks like Wayne (”Anything But Straight”) Besen
has been taking his hate pill again. Besen, who is out to
prove, with Stalinesque zeal, that no homosexual can change – has
written another diatribe
against me and Americans For Truth.
Just as night follows day, we
could have predicted that Wayne and his fellow “gay” comrades, including
the folks at Box Turtle
Bulletin (who alternate between high-minded critiques of pro-family research
and mean-spirited name-calling), would ridicule — not the men at
International Mr. Leather who were engaging in vile (”pig sex”) orgies at
Chicago’s Palmer House Hilton Hotel; not the “leather”
vendors hawking twisted porn videos including those featuring “fisting” and
“water sports” – but yours truly, for exposing these
perversions.
We’ll have more on Wayne and friends later, but for now, check
out his angry blog entry following our feeble attempt to shine the light of
truth on the sadistic goings-on at IML. Oh, we almost forgot: “Porno Pete” is
Wayne’s nickname for me because, you see, the fact that I expose “gay” extremism
makes me, well …. a secret gay (make that a secret “leatherman”). I suppose
according to that logic, Simon Wiesenthal was a covert Nazi and Mother
Teresa made hidden donations to Planned Parenthood."

Again with the International Mr. Leather convention? And with even more details than last time. Actually, Babs, your nickname "Porno Pete" is not because you expose such things...it's because you seem so utterly fascinated with them. The reference has nothing to do with whether or not you're secretly gay (honestly, we don't care, Babs), and everything to do with your seeming so preoccupied with the bedroom activities of others. Really, Pete...if you're going to rant and rave and go into such detail (something you won't see on sites such as Box Turtle Bulletin, Pam's House Blend, etc) you have to expect some backlash. By the way, pointing out what you've said and posted doesn't automatically equal "hate speech," Pete, but your likening the words of your opponents to that of Stalin shows your own level of hate.

Ellen Ratner's GOP Summary

2007-06-04T08:12:00.000-05:00

Every once in a while, WingNutDaily allows someone with somewhat different mores to have a spot on their website. Although buried about 3 pages into today's content, Ellen Ratner's "Liberal and Proud" post is dead on in explaining the biggest problem with the GOP and in suggesting who the nominee should be. In a brief, but telling history of the GOP, Ratner says...

"The Republicans' base used to be made up of pretty centrist Americans.
Their core values could be boiled down to three words – less, less, more – less
government, less taxes and more prosperity. The three words today are "no, no,
no." No abortion, no gay rights and no immigrants; or perhaps, no, no, no, mo,
as in more guns or more bombing. The problem is "no, no, no" isn't very
inspiring. Who wants to invest in no, no and no? This is why Republicans are in
a cash-crunch for the first time in recent memory."

Exactly...despite the fear mongering and constant battling against the rights of others (the very thing they are so afraid of facing), it seems the public has managed to see through the GOP smokescreen, leaving "recovering republicans" wondering who to support. Ratner refers to John McCain and Mitt Romney as, "the waffle brothers," and rightly so. These two have switched positions on so many issues that it's getting too difficult to keep up with where, exactly, they stand on any given day. Fred Thompson is described as someone who will force a Perot type situation, bringing Michael Bloomberg in as an independent...which, in my opinion, would be a bad thing should Hilary or Obama (or the still talked about combo ticket) be the Democrat's offering. If McCain and Romney are "the waffle brothers," then Hilary and Obama are the double talking duo. Their positions on issues of gay rights, Iraq, etc. are about as clear as the water in the Hudson River. What is Ratner's suggestion for the Republicans left wondering whom to support?

"Giuliani is the only candidate who has a chance. Republicans are fools if
they don't nominate him."

I think that's excellent advise, honestly. Should Edwards be unable to gain the Democratic nomination, and Hilary or Obama be the nominee, I would imagine that many Democrats may switch sides and vote for Giuliani. Sometimes an election comes down to choosing the lesser of the two evils. I fear that the 2008 election will become just that.

LaBarbera Way Too Interested in Mr. Leather

2007-06-01T09:00:00.000-05:00

Once again, Babs over at Americans For Truth seems to be completely fascinated by the goings on at the International Mr. Leather convention held in Chicago. In a two-part post, no less, Peter LaBarbera goes to great lengths in denouncing the convention...

"Rather than honoring the spirit of the parade by paying tribute to our
troops, veterans and past generations of American fighting men, the Chicago
Theater’s management opted instead to welcome one of the most purely evil
perversion-fests ever invented by mankind. International Mr. Leather
(IML) serves as an annual excuse for “leathermen” — mostly homosexual men
but some “straight” SM couples — to engage in vile orgies that would make Sodom
blush. For our pictorial story about the sadistic “Mr. Leather” gatherings
this year and last year at the Palmer House Hilton Hotel, click HERE (WARNING:
disturbing images)."

Babs goes on to share some of those "disturbing images," but it only made me wonder why the detailed and very obvious fascination over the event? I don't think that anyone was in his bedroom forcing any of these behaviors on him or his wife, nor am I aware of any innocent Chicago citizens being forced to participate in any of the convention's events. I suppose either Babs had too much time on his hands, or he had other *ahem* reasons for dwelling on the subject as much as he did.

**Note...AFT puts these posts on the same page as other, more recent posts, so you may need to scroll down to find the two posts to which I'm specifically referring.

Pastor Known For Protests Denied Permission to March in Chicago Pride Parade

2007-06-01T08:29:00.000-05:00

I need to create a new file, and this will be the first story to fit into it...the "Well, DUH!" file. A Chicago pastor, Ruben Israel (leader of the Street Preachers group), who was denied permission to march in the June 24th Pride Parade has become the subject of an idiotic WingNut article. Israel says...

"I see this as nothing but hypocrisy," said Ruben
Israel, who has been at the Chicago
event for seven previous years, protesting the homosexual lifestyle choice
from the sidewalks."

Is it just me, or is anyone else seeing the hypocrisy displayed here by the pastor? If any gay rights advocacy group wanted to participate in an event held by a religious organization that was fundamentally opposed to homosexual rights, do you think that they'd be allowed access? I seriously doubt it, and Mr. Israel just makes himself look ridiculous by trying to get into the very event he spent the last seven years protesting. For all his whining and fear mongering about losing his right to free speech (comments which can be read in the rest of the article), I imagine he'll still be on the sidelines protesting as he has for the last seven years...unimpeded, I might add. Loss of free speech, give me a break.

Mary Cheney and Heather Poe's Baby Unleashes a 'Sinful Fury'

2007-05-31T09:39:00.000-05:00

As tired as I am of even discussing this ridiculousness, today's comments from both the WingNuts and the Concerned Women of America just have to be addressed. Amazingly, the caption below that lovely photo of the Cheneys, holding their new grandchild and looking like genuinely proud grandparents, has now become the focus more ugliness in what should be a happy and endearing family event. WND says...

"The caption included the words: "...His parents are the Cheneys' daughter Mary, and
her partner, Heather Poe. White House photo by David Bohrer."

You guessed it, the fact that Heather Poe was acknowledged as one of the child's parents is what the fundies are all upset about. The article goes on to say...

"I say shame on the White House, shame on the president and shame on the
vice president for allowing such a caption to be 'officially' added onto the
White House website and such a beautiful photo of two happy grandparents and
their new grandchild," said Stephen Bennett, founder of Stephen Bennett Ministries, which
advocates for those who choose to leave the homosexual lifestyle."

First of all, notice the "Ex-gay" label aversion in the description of the ministry founded by Mr. Bennett. More importantly, though, shame on you Mr. Bennett for once again overshadowing the fact that this child was born into a stable, loving family. You may not like the make up of this particular family, and you are more than entitled to that opinion. But why must you continue to essentially condemn this precious little boy to what you deem a life of sin and spiritual misguidance? Sure, you'll say that isn't what you're saying at all...but isn't it?

It's beyond time for the fundamentalist base to back off and let this family...that's right, I said FAMILY...celebrate the new life they've brought into this world.

Soon We'll Have 11 Little Republican Monkeys...

2007-05-30T12:06:00.000-05:00

Seems Fred Thompson is planning to enter the presidential race sometime around the 4th of July, according to information released by his advisors. It sort of screws up my little nursery rhyme, lol...but I'll still have fun watching the little monkeys drop along the way.

Don't know the nursery rhyme? Oh, let me share then, LOL...

11 little monkeys sitting in a tree...teasing Mr. Crocodile, "You can't catch me, you can't catch me!" Then along comes Mr. Crocodile, just as quiet as he can be...and...SNAP!!!
10 little monkeys sitting in a tree...

See how much fun this can be?

New Executive Order Grants the Presidency Unprecedented Powers...Has the WingNuts All Paranoid

2007-05-30T11:55:00.000-05:00

In case you missed it, the Chimperor recently signed an executive order which would grant a great deal of power to the the executive branch in the event of some sort of national emergency or disaster. I'll have to argue the whole executive order in another blog, but I had to mention this article that popped up on WingNutDaily today. It's funny how even the nutcases...I mean the base of Bush's support...are looking at this with suspicion.

The article itself doesn't really point to WND's paranoia, but the headline does...

"THE NEW WORLD DISORDER Emergency detention plan: 'This way to the camps!'
Directive from Bush allows president extraordinary powers in national
crisis"

Anyone else smell the fear? As I said, I'll expand on this issue at a later date because I don't like the wording or premise behind the executive order either...but I think that this story being promoted by some of the Chimperor's biggest fans is just hilarious!

Americans For Truth Attack 'Shrek'

2007-05-30T08:59:00.000-05:00

I've read this little article twice now, and I'm just seething at the conclusions that were drawn and how the LGBT community is...once again...the absolute root of all evil. In making her point...sort of, lol...the author, Fran Eaton says...

"Shrek’s not the problem. It’s the awkward inclusion of a travestite
and the uselessness of the character himself (herself?) in the story that is
troubling.
Right in the midst of a warm “traditional family”
setting, the film writers place a man dressed as a woman in with Sleeping
Beauty, Cinderella, Snow White (the good gals). The crossdressing
character simply doesn’t make sense, except as a ploy to desensitize children
and parents to transgenders."

Honestly, had she stopped there I might have shrugged my shoulders and agreed to disagree. It's what she says next that is just unbelievable...

"Homosexual activists now are careful to not only use the term “LGBTs” as a
unit, they are more boldly now declaring lesbians-gays-bisexuals-transgenders as
a unit pushing together as one for civil rights. Those confused about
their sexual roles are pushing for equal rights to be free to publicly
demonstrate their odd sexual behavior. For transgenders, appearing to be a
different sex in public is their particular turn on. We need to understand
that acceptance of this sexual behavior is just another step moving our world
toward sexual chaos."

LGBT individuals are not confused about their sexual roles, Ms. Eaton, because those roles are part of their identity. Likewise, transgendered people appear as they do in public because it is their identity. For you to stoop to the phrase, "turn on," is not only insulting, but shows your gross ignorance as well. Before I move on to the next paragraph, does anyone know what Ms. Eaton could possibly mean by the term, "sexual chaos?" Please, give me your insights on this one, 'cause I'm stumped! The last little bit of Fran's tirade reads as follows...

"It’s disturbing there’s not more outcry about this sly tactic being used
in a movie made for children. But I suppose after being
reminded recently of Jerry Falwell’s concern about the Teletubbies
characters’ sexual orientations and the post-heaven going ridicule and hatred
those who dare to question LGBTs tactics are likely to endure in the mainstream
media after their passing, some have shyed away from publicly tackling the
topic. That’s understandable.
But well-meaning parents who plan to take
their kids to see a movie that grossed $122 million in the opening weekend
should be aware . . . it’s the subtlety of the movie makers’ agenda to
desensitize that could be more harmful to your children than encouraging them to
eat sugary cereals in the morning."

Once again, I must hang my head in shame, for I missed the day in "How to be a Lesbian" school where they taught us to search for and employ "sly" tactics in children's movies. While Fran wants a pat on the back for "publicly tackling the topic," she is completely blind to the fact that we are not interested in somehow tricking her or any of God's other children into becoming lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered. Frankly, it's the constant negative and ignorant bloviating on this issue that is more harmful to children than eating sugary cereal, Ms. Eaton...but while one habit may rot your little one's teeth, the other will rot their hearts.

WND's Judge Roy Moore Shows His Ignorance

2007-05-30T08:15:00.000-05:00

Anyone who knows me well, knows I'm no fan of Hilary, but this swipe at her wanting to mandate Pre-Kindergarten for all 4 year olds only serves to point out the Judge's ignorance on the subject. It also makes the point that Senator Clinton doesn't know much about what's going on in the nation's schools, but the Judge's underlying argument is what is really in question here...

"Last week, U.S. Sen. and Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton
unveiled a new proposal to fund state pre-kindergarten programs for all
4-year-old children in America. Calling the benefits of these pre-kindergarten
programs "astonishing," Clinton claimed such programs would not only reduce
child behavioral problems, but would also make children less likely to enter
special education programs, drop out of school or enter the welfare system.
However, pre-kindergarten programs have been around for many years, and such
grandiose claims have been refuted by several studies on the effectiveness of
such programs. The truth is government-run pre-kindergarten programs are another
huge burden on taxpayers, and, in fact, they are detrimental to children and our
country."

Judge Moore is right, pre-kindergarten programs have been around for some time...a fact which Senator Clinton seems to be oblivious to...but in these opening statements, I find two huge problems. First, the "studies," mentioned are not identified or otherwise referenced, bringing into question not only the validity of the Judge's argument, but the very existence of the studies themselves. Second, and I'm going to reference my background in education and my years of classroom experience here...pre-kindergarten curriculum content does provide an excellent foundation for early cognitive development. Notice I did not endorse public programs specifically. As a homeschooler, although not in the religious sense, I recognize that not all local school districts or programs are what they should be. But to assert that pre-kindergarten programs...even the less than stellar examples...are detrimental to children is absurd. The cognitive elements alone, even when not entirely mastered, can only be beneficial.

As a brief example, learning early on that all reading and writing begins on the left-hand side of a page and moves to the right is an essential and previously overlooked element of pre-reading education. Giving a child an extra year to learn that concept as well as many other pre-reading concepts can hardly be described as detrimental.

Judge Moore continues...

"Proponents of universal pre-kindergarten offer early childhood
education as a remedy for declining test scores and repeated poor showings in
academic comparisons to students in other countries. They claim that by starting
public education at age 3 or 4 rather than 5 or 6, children will enter
kindergarten with better reading, language, math, cognitive and social skills,
they score better on standardized tests, and they are more likely to mature into
responsible citizens – likelier to be married, with higher education attainment
and better-paying jobs."

I consider myself (as well as a large group of current and former colleagues) a proponent of pre-kindergarten, but not for all the reasons the Judge mentions. Since I'm in Texas, I'll use my state's pre-kindergarten curriculum guidelines as an example and say that the majority of children who successfully complete these benchmarks will, in fact, have an advantage in the areas mentioned in the quote above. Standardized testing and the other examples mentioned are in entirely different ballparks, though. Putting the social issues aside, standardized testing has become something of a money game in many states (mine included), and the bar is set so low that teachers...forced to adhere to a very rigid teaching schedule that does not allow for enrichment or the type of higher order thinking skill reinforcement one would expect...are teaching to the lowest common denominator. Honestly, I could do an entire post solely on the subject of state mandated testing, but I'll leave it at that for now. I doubt, though, that any one with a modicum of common sense would believe that one year in a pre-kindergarten program will turn out more socially mature adults.

Judge Moore goes on for a few more paragraphs, mentioning unnamed studies which claim to refute benefits in the cognitive, behavioral and social realms before coming to his real point...

"Why, then, do social liberals like Hillary Clinton push so hard for the
expansion of preschool programs? Perhaps they understand the truth of Proverbs
22:6 better than most parents: "Train up a child in the way he should go: and
when he is old, he will not depart from it." When the mind of a young child is
subjected to state control before fundamental concepts and basic beliefs are
formulated, the child is much more likely to learn a liberal social and
political philosophy with the state as his or her master. Creation and God-given
rights are more easily replaced with evolution and government-granted rights.
Totalitarian regimes like those of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin knew well the
value of a "youth corps." As Hans Schemm, leader of the Nazi Teacher's League,
once observed, "Those who have the youth on their side control the future."

Suddenly, anyone who suggests legitimate educational programs, devoid of any underlying attempts at indoctrination, is guilty of attempting just that...indoctrination. It's this type of fundamentalist paranoia that turns seemingly intelligent and capable people into blithering idiots. Hilary Clinton was wrong when she made the assertion that such educational programs weren't already in existence, but Judge Moore completely went off the deep end and seriously damaged his credibility with his linking of pre-kindergarten to the totalitarian motives of such nefarious regimes as Hitler and Stalin.

Bottom line...it's pre-kindergarten, folks. Whether you send your child to a publicly offered program or teach them at home, we're talking about basic, foundational skills and nothing more. To insist it's anything other than just that smacks of fear-mongering and paranoia...period.

AFA Upset About Abstinence Education Funding

2007-05-29T08:13:00.000-05:00

I just love the AFA's little 'Action Alerts,' and this one just makes me chuckle. Looking at their first paragraph...

"The Democratic leaders of the House Energy & Commerce Committee have
reportedly decided to kill the abstinence education program this year in favor
of so-called “comprehensive” programs that emphasize “safe sex” and
contraception"

Well, I can see the logic there, lol. I mean, what we need in America today is more cases of AIDS and other STDs, as well as unplanned pregnancies, right?

Like any other political issue, for every study one side has stating their plan is better...the opposing side has just as many. But thanks, AFA, for the post-Memorial Day weekend laugh. All of us trying to get back into a normal work routine greatly appreciate it!

Update...CWA Chimed in on Mary Cheney After All

2007-05-29T08:06:00.000-05:00

I suppose I breathed a sigh of relief too soon Thursday when I saw that CWA hadn't commented on the birth of Mary Cheney's baby. It turns out, they just waited until later in the day to post Matt Barber's response. In his opening paragraph, Mr. Barber shows his unadulterated contempt for this new family while covering his ass by referring to Samuel David as a, "beautiful child of God." The last sentence of this paragraph (still talking about his opening paragraph, mind you) makes my blood boil...

"But the conditions under which Ms. Cheney has chosen to bring this child
into the world are to be condemned."

Did Mary give birth in a manner that was somehow unhealthy? Perhaps she had preconceived plans to move her newborn child into the heart of Baghdad, placing him in mortal danger. No? Well, then, surely she is using funds given to her by the government for the purpose of feeding herself and her newborn to buy drugs or alcohol. What? You mean none of those things are true? So, what could Mr. Barber possibly see as the condemning conditions Ms. Cheney has chosen?

The deeply intellectual answer you're searching for here is...a father. Matt tries to spin his wheels about the, "physical impossibility," for a homosexual couple to conceive...insulting infertile, heterosexual couples along the way, I would imagine, but the basis of this most recent rant is the lack of a father in the active, parenting picture. I would be willing to bet that there are thousands of American children who would tell you that having their abusive fathers around isn't (or wasn't) such a rosy way to grow up, but I fear that might be just one too many facts and would only leave Mr. Barber confused. Clearly, not only is his mind the size of a tiny grain of sand, but he is also just as bigoted as his recently fallen colleague, Rev. Falwell.

Janet Folger Misses the Point...Again

2007-05-29T07:58:00.000-05:00

I'm rapidly tiring of the fundies attempting to capitalize on the death of Jerry Falwell. You read that right...they're trying every lame ass trick in the book to use the Reverend's death to its absolute fullest extent. This time, after invoking the same quotes made by some of my fellow bloggers, Janet Folger brings up the murder of a woman, committed at the hands of a 19 yr. old homosexual...

"It reminds me about what happened after the murder of Mary Stachowicz.
Ever hear of her? Didn't think so. Mary Stachowicz, a 51-year-old wife and
mother of four, was described by friends as soft-spoken, "concerned about the
good of her parish, always seeking things for the poor as well as spiritual
welfare for people." Mary Stachowicz also believed what the Bible and the
Catholic Church taught about homosexuality. She verbalized her belief, and for
that crime, she was murdered. Mary was murdered by 19-year-old homosexual
Nicholas Gutierrez in Chicago for the crime of disagreeing with his lifestyle.
According to police reports, Stachowicz asked Gutierrez, who lived in an
apartment above her, "Why do you [have sex with] boys instead of girls?" That
was when he "punched, kicked, stabbed and strangled" her before stuffing her
body into a crawl space under the floor of his apartment, where it remained for
two days until he confessed to police."

I will be the first to raise my hand in saying I didn't recall this story, and I'll even go so far as to say that the absent condemnation from the homosexual community is appalling...bet ol' Janet didn't see that coming, lol. Here comes one great big "BUT," lol...

As horrific as the murder of Stachowicz was, it was isolated...unlike the same types of murders and other vicious attacks against homosexual and transgendered people. DO NOT misunderstand me...I am in no way diminishing the tragedy of this woman's death. Rather, I'm using it as the stepping stone to the point of my argument, something Ms. Folger was all to eager to do, herself.

So far, Ms. Folger has started with the free speech of those with whom she disagrees (specifically, the bloggers who expressed their less than warm, fuzzy feelings for Jerry Falwell), links that to the death of Ms. Stachowicz, and then attempts to draw a very crooked line linking those events to the suspended students I blogged about last week...

"Haven't you heard? Words of disagreement with the homosexual agenda are
now illegal. Just ask more than 100 kids who were suspended for wearing T-shirts
that expressed their biblical views on the topic. Shirts with Bible verses and
such sayings as "Don't touch God's rainbow" threw San Juan High School students
in California out of school."

Ask any adolescent, and you'll quickly find out...if you couldn't figure it out to begin with, that is...those shirts were intended to start a controversy, if not a confrontation. Free speech is something that is and should be granted to everyone, but to use this example of children trying to make a religious statement is absurd. It makes me wonder, honestly, if that's all she really had in the way of argument. Surely Ms. Folger, a seasoned columnist, would be able to put together a stronger argument than what she has presented here. Unfortunately, she...like many other fundies...chose to dance on the grave of Falwell, use flimsy examples of free speech infringements and invoke the almighty, yet elusive, homosexual agenda to do one thing...

" S. 1105, the so-called "hate crimes" bill, is the most dangerous
bill in America. It will revoke what used to be called the freedom of speech. I
don't agree with all the speech I hear. You may not agree with mine. But if we
don't stop this bill together, we will all lose the right to disagree, to quote
the Bible and to speak the truth. Speak up before you are locked up."

Ms. Folger, ask yourself a few questions...were the bloggers who made disparaging comments against Rev. Falwell in any way fined or jailed? No? So mentioning them was just to somehow give your article more credibility then, I see. Was Falwell, himself, ever fined or jailed for his comments regarding homosexuality? No, again? So free speech for you and other adults who do disagree isn't and hasn't been impugned or in any way infringed upon. Did the 19 year old who murdered Ms. Stachowicz get away with his crime? Still no? Then why are you so afraid of this bill, and why do you feel it necessary to use your own as some sort of scare tactic?

I have an answer, although I doubt you'll appreciate it, Janet. You're losing the battle by warning against the loss of free speech rights, so now it's time to stoop to an even lower level...capitalizing on the death of one of your own to renew that initial fear mongering tactic among your other fundie friends and hoping to god it works.

Once again, Janet...you've gotten caught.