doghouse riley has been doing this more than amazing retrospective of the "bush" "administration", and its "governance". i wish i could surpass this. i wish i could express my searing hatred of this "man" and all the shit he has covered this nation in as well as doghouse riley does. hell, i wish i could tell stories about lawn care as well as doghouse does.
and to chris matthews: i'm not disagreeing with you- but i saw all this in 2000, and in 2001 (even on september 12), and in 2002, especially in 2003, and so on. did i have access to information about him that you didn't? is there some reason you decided to become blinded by his manly landing on aircraft carrier, while some of us perceived that this photo op was the whole reason bush decided we should invade iraq? were his jokes on the 2000 campaign plane so fucking hysterical that you felt guilty criticizing him until fucking 2008? when it's too late to even impeach him. finally growing a pair mid-2008 doesn't excuse castrating yourself for 7-1/2 years, asshat.
and to all of you dipshits who voted for this dirty, motherfucking whore to polluters, warmongers, defence contractors, dishonest foreigners, anti-woman zealots, theocrats, cronies, and anybody else who sucks and fucks others over; to all of you who voted for him in 2000 or especially in 2004- are you happy? wtf is wrong with you? how could you look around, even way back in 2004, and think we were doin' okay, or even a heckuva job? did you really need the federal government forcing terri schiavo to keep breathing and destruction in yet another major american city to start giving a shit? question the guy? wonder if maybe brains might just be a minor qualification for the fucking job? shut the fuck up about history judging him- what you really mean is that george w bush will only look like a good president when the people who actually remember him are dead.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Saturday, January 17, 2009
in praise of partisanship
jack, i love you. i really do. but why the fuck do you want our nation's two parties to work together? exactly what have democrats gotten for cooperating with republicans? remember the almost fucking unaminous vote to invade afghanistan? remember no child left behind? remember fucking invading iraq? remember medicare prescription benefits? remember the goddamned patriot act? remember its reauthorization? remember giving amnesty to telecoms that helped bush break the motherfucking fourth amendment? remember yanking habeus corpus with the military commissions act? remember allowing torture with the same goddamned bill? remember continually reauthorizing money to fund the occupation of iraq? remember when pelosi said impeachment was off the table? what HAVEN'T the democrats not handed to republicans on a fucking platter in the desperate, self-loathing quest to get republicans' respect? the only thing the democrats really managed to kill during the last eight years was privatizing social security. oh, and some really fucked up rightwing nutjobs didn't get federal judgeships (didn't bother republicans when they did it to clinton's nominees, i might add). can you name anything else? can you name ANYTHING else that democrats howled and screamed NO! to, and republicans backed down? well?!?!?!?!?
yes, i voted for obama. yes, i hope he can really "reach across" that aisle. but what are republicans going to offer him? what do republicans ever give in return? they don't fully fund education deform, they could give a fuck about congressional oversight of the powers in the patriot act. they give nothing in return but false promises and their repeated contempt. everything democrats gave into during bush's term has turned to shit. so fuck working with republicans. it's time for them to shut up- we tried their ideas, and their ideas are shit. so democrats don't want to deal them anymore. boo fucking hoo. cry me a goddamned river.
yes, i voted for obama. yes, i hope he can really "reach across" that aisle. but what are republicans going to offer him? what do republicans ever give in return? they don't fully fund education deform, they could give a fuck about congressional oversight of the powers in the patriot act. they give nothing in return but false promises and their repeated contempt. everything democrats gave into during bush's term has turned to shit. so fuck working with republicans. it's time for them to shut up- we tried their ideas, and their ideas are shit. so democrats don't want to deal them anymore. boo fucking hoo. cry me a goddamned river.
Monday, December 29, 2008
the beatings will continue until morale improves
which is pretty much israel's attitude. this guy on al jazeera literally just says, well sure they're suffering, but so what? we've had to put up with bombs that haven't killed anyone in over 6 months, so they should've been starved and frozen and dehydrated to the point that they need medical attention that gaza doesn't have medical supplies for. hey arabs, suck on that!
here's the deal. i'm about 80% sure that israel is going to demand that hamas be removed (or step down) from power. that's probably the goal. hamas getting elected to power in the last elections was the spark for this latest round of battleship. remember the world's reaction? aid money dried up, and israel decided to not hand over tax and customs money that even rightfully belonged to palestine, on the grounds that there's no way the dirty arabs would actually spend it on government. even though that was hamas' strong suit and the reason palestinians picked them in the elections. so mahmoud abbas tried to negotiate a compromise. but hamas felt it had been screwed, and maybe it had, and it wanted what it had won in the election, even if the rest of the world had no intention of letting them have it. so hamas took gaza and fatah took the west bank and the bush administration tried, at least for the cameras, to look like it would reward the good dog. but if you lock someone in a closet and tell them they're not getting food or water or a light bulb until they decide to give the closet to someone else, that shit out of luck soul will start figuring out how to get out of the closet to teach you some fucking manners.
but israel is going to insist on the removal of hamas from power, and total control of palestine for a party that lost the last round of elections. all because the poor saps actually thought a democratic election would be respected. what were they thinking? that palestinian elections were for palestine's benefit? only tikkun thinks that. israel has reserved for itself the right (based on what, i don't know- certainly not international law), to decide that palestinians picked wrong, according to israel's interests. israel is not even going to pretend, in that white man's burden way, to be acting in palestinians' interests when it decides who their leaders will be. which i could respect, if israel didn't act like it has the right to decide who will eat and drink water and get heating fuel and medical supplies based on how they voted. because when you do things that cause deaths to civilian populations because of their political choices, there's a word for that.
this bears saying, maybe even on american television once in a while: there is a group of people in that region, maybe even more than one, that is on its knees at the edge of an existential cliff. but it's not the israelis. and i'd appreciate it if marty peretz could get that thru his george bush cocksucking head. i am actually finally old enough to say that i've seen this before, whether it was late 2000's intifada, or the 2006 war in lebanon. the aerial bombardment and ground troops thing doesn't work. neither, for that matter do katyushas or qassams. but i think (assume) both parties know that by now. i think they're doing this because deep down, the governments (internationally recognized and otherwise) of that region know what the long term solution is, but it involves decisions that can be called political suicide. in the case of yitzahk rabin, it was putting an "assassinate me" sign on his back. you think arafat and abbas didn't learn something from that? you really think anyone from any country is going to take that kind of risk now? then you deserve the stupidity of the talking heads.
here's the deal. i'm about 80% sure that israel is going to demand that hamas be removed (or step down) from power. that's probably the goal. hamas getting elected to power in the last elections was the spark for this latest round of battleship. remember the world's reaction? aid money dried up, and israel decided to not hand over tax and customs money that even rightfully belonged to palestine, on the grounds that there's no way the dirty arabs would actually spend it on government. even though that was hamas' strong suit and the reason palestinians picked them in the elections. so mahmoud abbas tried to negotiate a compromise. but hamas felt it had been screwed, and maybe it had, and it wanted what it had won in the election, even if the rest of the world had no intention of letting them have it. so hamas took gaza and fatah took the west bank and the bush administration tried, at least for the cameras, to look like it would reward the good dog. but if you lock someone in a closet and tell them they're not getting food or water or a light bulb until they decide to give the closet to someone else, that shit out of luck soul will start figuring out how to get out of the closet to teach you some fucking manners.
but israel is going to insist on the removal of hamas from power, and total control of palestine for a party that lost the last round of elections. all because the poor saps actually thought a democratic election would be respected. what were they thinking? that palestinian elections were for palestine's benefit? only tikkun thinks that. israel has reserved for itself the right (based on what, i don't know- certainly not international law), to decide that palestinians picked wrong, according to israel's interests. israel is not even going to pretend, in that white man's burden way, to be acting in palestinians' interests when it decides who their leaders will be. which i could respect, if israel didn't act like it has the right to decide who will eat and drink water and get heating fuel and medical supplies based on how they voted. because when you do things that cause deaths to civilian populations because of their political choices, there's a word for that.
this bears saying, maybe even on american television once in a while: there is a group of people in that region, maybe even more than one, that is on its knees at the edge of an existential cliff. but it's not the israelis. and i'd appreciate it if marty peretz could get that thru his george bush cocksucking head. i am actually finally old enough to say that i've seen this before, whether it was late 2000's intifada, or the 2006 war in lebanon. the aerial bombardment and ground troops thing doesn't work. neither, for that matter do katyushas or qassams. but i think (assume) both parties know that by now. i think they're doing this because deep down, the governments (internationally recognized and otherwise) of that region know what the long term solution is, but it involves decisions that can be called political suicide. in the case of yitzahk rabin, it was putting an "assassinate me" sign on his back. you think arafat and abbas didn't learn something from that? you really think anyone from any country is going to take that kind of risk now? then you deserve the stupidity of the talking heads.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
the new low
what dicks. really? you're looking out for tax payers and saving america's auto industry? because it seems to this mere mortal that you're screwing these people (not necessarily in this order):
1- the taxpayers
2- the people who make america's cars
3- the auto industry in general
first of all, maybe the uaw could have caved. but i really don't want to live in a country where a union can be put over a barrel and sodomized with an open umbrella. and how the uaw can now suddenly just agree to shit without a member vote is way past me. it might just be that, instead, the republicans just don't fucking know how unions work.
but here's why these fucktards are screwing us, them, and the cars. they're screwing the taxpayers because a $14 billion loan is alot fucking better than the billions of dollars we'll have to pay in umemployment, food stamps, and medicaid. remember- it's not just the autoworkers. it's everyone who sells the autoworkers shit. it's their grocery stores, their hardware stores, their mortgage institutions, everyfuckingbody. that's alot more unemployed people at a time when anyone with working neurons in the u.s. government wants to desperately keep the jobs that george bush hasn't yet flushed down a toilet with his blow.
the human scumbuckets are also screwing the autoworkers. i love how these anti-centralized economy dickwads are now setting wage caps. call me crazy, but we haven't done that for private sector employees since nixon's price setting. these southern dixies have decided that this is truly the best moment to make belonging to a union useless. it relieves the pressure on the manufacturers in their states (mostly foreign car companies, mind you) to raise wages. manufacturers, i might add, that these mule-raping cross burners were more than happy to woo to their jurisdictions with so much cash (in the form of tax benefits, mostly) it was like toyota was a stripper and richard shelby was howard stern.
and the auto industry. now, as someone who doesn't own a car- which is a truly stupid thing to do in new york fucking city, i tolerate the auto industry because i've been able to drive a toyota prius once. and i drove around on business for three fucking days and went through maybe a 1/4 tank of gas. i liked that (btw, don't go for the full tank option when you have a hybrid- just get the option to only refill what you burned- and ALWAYS get the loss/damage waiver. that's another story). i don't understand our national desire to fucking drive everywhere, or to live in neighborhoods where that's the only option. that's always struck me as a sign of a true dumbass. but u.s. automakers do employ a shitload of people who i'd like to keep on their payrolls instead of on the dole. dealerships also employ a shitload of people. as well as the people who supply u.s. cars' parts. as well as everyone who does something for autoworkers that make union wages. and general clark may be right- maybe we should keep people manufacturing at u.s. owned plants- plants we may need during wartime. i don't know if our use of auto plants to make ww2 war shit can be redone for today's war shit. what i do know is that before the gm plant in janesville, wisconsin, closed, the people who worked there were proud of what they did. they were proud to own gm cars. in fact, old-time janesville residents made a point of owning gm cars. they were proud to work for a u.s. automaker. not because they hated japanese people, but because they were proud of what america could do. with the exception of homes, i don't know of any other manufactured product that people are so proud to make.
the u.s. auto industry doesn't have to die just because some senate republicans would like to help the foreign manufacturers currently working in their home states (until some other state lures them away). the auto industry had just secured some useful concessions from the uaw, freeing itself from future retiree burdens. what we need to do is remind the u.s. auto industry that if they're so near and dear to our hearts that we won't let them fail, then they need to feel the same for us. we need cars that emit less co2. we need cars that stop making smog. we need smaller cars. we need more buses. like the auto industry, we too are too big to fail. and it's u.s. automakers that would receive the help necessary to make the cars americans really need. i love hondas, but the u.s. government has no business giving honda money. that's for japan to do.
okay, maybe i'm being a little idealistic. maybe i have this idea in my head that u.s. automakers would be more interested in serving the general public than in manufacturing some highly profitable machine and creating consumer demand for it by convincing americans that they need tons of space and gadgets they'll never use. i know. but they're u.s. automakers- they fall under our jurisdiction. if we're going to be reminded that we need to help them out sporadically, we can remind them that they're supposed to act in america's interest, at least until the checks clear.
1- the taxpayers
2- the people who make america's cars
3- the auto industry in general
first of all, maybe the uaw could have caved. but i really don't want to live in a country where a union can be put over a barrel and sodomized with an open umbrella. and how the uaw can now suddenly just agree to shit without a member vote is way past me. it might just be that, instead, the republicans just don't fucking know how unions work.
but here's why these fucktards are screwing us, them, and the cars. they're screwing the taxpayers because a $14 billion loan is alot fucking better than the billions of dollars we'll have to pay in umemployment, food stamps, and medicaid. remember- it's not just the autoworkers. it's everyone who sells the autoworkers shit. it's their grocery stores, their hardware stores, their mortgage institutions, everyfuckingbody. that's alot more unemployed people at a time when anyone with working neurons in the u.s. government wants to desperately keep the jobs that george bush hasn't yet flushed down a toilet with his blow.
the human scumbuckets are also screwing the autoworkers. i love how these anti-centralized economy dickwads are now setting wage caps. call me crazy, but we haven't done that for private sector employees since nixon's price setting. these southern dixies have decided that this is truly the best moment to make belonging to a union useless. it relieves the pressure on the manufacturers in their states (mostly foreign car companies, mind you) to raise wages. manufacturers, i might add, that these mule-raping cross burners were more than happy to woo to their jurisdictions with so much cash (in the form of tax benefits, mostly) it was like toyota was a stripper and richard shelby was howard stern.
and the auto industry. now, as someone who doesn't own a car- which is a truly stupid thing to do in new york fucking city, i tolerate the auto industry because i've been able to drive a toyota prius once. and i drove around on business for three fucking days and went through maybe a 1/4 tank of gas. i liked that (btw, don't go for the full tank option when you have a hybrid- just get the option to only refill what you burned- and ALWAYS get the loss/damage waiver. that's another story). i don't understand our national desire to fucking drive everywhere, or to live in neighborhoods where that's the only option. that's always struck me as a sign of a true dumbass. but u.s. automakers do employ a shitload of people who i'd like to keep on their payrolls instead of on the dole. dealerships also employ a shitload of people. as well as the people who supply u.s. cars' parts. as well as everyone who does something for autoworkers that make union wages. and general clark may be right- maybe we should keep people manufacturing at u.s. owned plants- plants we may need during wartime. i don't know if our use of auto plants to make ww2 war shit can be redone for today's war shit. what i do know is that before the gm plant in janesville, wisconsin, closed, the people who worked there were proud of what they did. they were proud to own gm cars. in fact, old-time janesville residents made a point of owning gm cars. they were proud to work for a u.s. automaker. not because they hated japanese people, but because they were proud of what america could do. with the exception of homes, i don't know of any other manufactured product that people are so proud to make.
the u.s. auto industry doesn't have to die just because some senate republicans would like to help the foreign manufacturers currently working in their home states (until some other state lures them away). the auto industry had just secured some useful concessions from the uaw, freeing itself from future retiree burdens. what we need to do is remind the u.s. auto industry that if they're so near and dear to our hearts that we won't let them fail, then they need to feel the same for us. we need cars that emit less co2. we need cars that stop making smog. we need smaller cars. we need more buses. like the auto industry, we too are too big to fail. and it's u.s. automakers that would receive the help necessary to make the cars americans really need. i love hondas, but the u.s. government has no business giving honda money. that's for japan to do.
okay, maybe i'm being a little idealistic. maybe i have this idea in my head that u.s. automakers would be more interested in serving the general public than in manufacturing some highly profitable machine and creating consumer demand for it by convincing americans that they need tons of space and gadgets they'll never use. i know. but they're u.s. automakers- they fall under our jurisdiction. if we're going to be reminded that we need to help them out sporadically, we can remind them that they're supposed to act in america's interest, at least until the checks clear.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
so they're collateral damage, right?
if you are related to these people, just go read something else. this will justifiably piss you off. but it needs to be said. so just keep browsing.
well, turns out we do body counts after all. they just have to be american bodies. will the military treat these people like the afghanis they killed in august? will we hear that this family was from the animal liberation front? will we hear that the number three is an inflated number, because the san diego locals aren't entirely reliable (or able to count)? will their deaths be tragic, but necessary for our freedoms?
no. the military will compensate the families, and maybe even spank the motherfucker who decided "fuck this shit" before ejecting to leave his plane to crash into civilians. the military will fall all over itself redressing this shit. first of all, because san diego is a major major military town. don't believe me? fuckin' go there. second, san diego is not a war zone, so alot of "journalists" will have access to the locals. third, and maybe most important, the locals speak the same language as the "journalists", and the viewers, and will most likely be the same skin color and religion as the "journalists" and the viewers. don't think that matters? then wtf rock have you been living under? the big one in australia? fuckin' figures.
this will be a goddamned tragedy that the military swears it will take all steps to prevent from ever, ever, happening again. everyone will go on about how sorry the pilot was that he might have hurt someone, and how this really cuts him up, and he can't sleep at night, and fucking so on. there will be no denials of a single goddamn detail, or a single goddamned denial of how fucked up it is that a military plane's pilot can just abandon an f-18 without first making sure it won't hit someone else. there will be no comparison to when the military purposely fires on civilian areas, killing dozens, and claiming it's all okay 'cause they got a few taliban, who had some nerve hiding somewhere difficult to just bomb without killing others. the military will not claim that fighting terrorists trumps your ability to live out the day in your own home. nope.
since no one, no one, else will call these deaths the proper u.s. military name for them, i will: they're collateral damage. freebies. gimmes. people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time (without even knowing it) and paid for it with their lives. people who had the nerve to think they were safe and deserved to be. people who thought staying out of trouble meant it wouldn't crash into the house. if only we really applied this definition, we might rethink how often we use it.
well, turns out we do body counts after all. they just have to be american bodies. will the military treat these people like the afghanis they killed in august? will we hear that this family was from the animal liberation front? will we hear that the number three is an inflated number, because the san diego locals aren't entirely reliable (or able to count)? will their deaths be tragic, but necessary for our freedoms?
no. the military will compensate the families, and maybe even spank the motherfucker who decided "fuck this shit" before ejecting to leave his plane to crash into civilians. the military will fall all over itself redressing this shit. first of all, because san diego is a major major military town. don't believe me? fuckin' go there. second, san diego is not a war zone, so alot of "journalists" will have access to the locals. third, and maybe most important, the locals speak the same language as the "journalists", and the viewers, and will most likely be the same skin color and religion as the "journalists" and the viewers. don't think that matters? then wtf rock have you been living under? the big one in australia? fuckin' figures.
this will be a goddamned tragedy that the military swears it will take all steps to prevent from ever, ever, happening again. everyone will go on about how sorry the pilot was that he might have hurt someone, and how this really cuts him up, and he can't sleep at night, and fucking so on. there will be no denials of a single goddamn detail, or a single goddamned denial of how fucked up it is that a military plane's pilot can just abandon an f-18 without first making sure it won't hit someone else. there will be no comparison to when the military purposely fires on civilian areas, killing dozens, and claiming it's all okay 'cause they got a few taliban, who had some nerve hiding somewhere difficult to just bomb without killing others. the military will not claim that fighting terrorists trumps your ability to live out the day in your own home. nope.
since no one, no one, else will call these deaths the proper u.s. military name for them, i will: they're collateral damage. freebies. gimmes. people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time (without even knowing it) and paid for it with their lives. people who had the nerve to think they were safe and deserved to be. people who thought staying out of trouble meant it wouldn't crash into the house. if only we really applied this definition, we might rethink how often we use it.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
yes, actually, you do hate gays
dear conservatives,
please stop telling me you don't hate gays. please also stop telling me you're just trying to protect marriage. you are the people who run ex-gay ministries to pray the gay the away. you are the ones who don't want gays near your children. one of you even blamed gays (and anybody else with a sex life for that matter) for wall street's meltdown. you hate gays. you hate them bad. and you haven't managed to protect marriage from a goddamned thing. you even let this guy get married. you let this guy get divorced. twice. this guy you love has been married and divorced three fucking times. you still love him. you still listen to him. you don't really give a shit about marriage. especially not if you'd like these two to wed. here's something that marriage actually needs to be protected from. get to it. although, if you really wanted marriage to truly be biblical, you'd actually have to support the FLDS. the actual marriage laws set forth by the old testament, jesus, and paul, are almost never adhered to today. in fact, what we here in 21st century america call marriage bears almost no resemblance to any marriage that happened in biblical times. if you're a widow, your dead husband's brother is neither required nor expected to marry you. in fact, it's considered a little odd. women aren't men's property in marriage any more. we don't even have to change our last names if we don't want to. nobody has to be a virgin to marry (tried to think of a dirty joke here, but couldn't. sorry). you don't even need a religious ceremony. so you conservatives will just have to fucking stop with the defending biblical marriage horseshit. america abandoned biblical marriage ages ago, and is better for it.
personally, i'd prefer it if these two people could wed. they have a child already, they've been together for 15 years already, and both women seem mature and experienced enough to make that kind of long term decision. but this marriage is apparently some evil that cannot be loosed on america, or we'll lose the invisible sky daddy's protection. or he won't crack a smile at us anymore. i know three gay men at work, all of them with long-term partners, one of them raising a kid with a partner. they could handle marriage. they already do handle marriage. they do the work of maintaining a relationship, raising a kid, and maintaining property together. people who do these things are entitled to state recognition for it. straight people get state recognition for much less, or much worse. hell, even this was a legal marriage.
just who the fuck are gays and lesbians a threat to, anyway? straights are starting to enjoy anal sex as much as the village people ever did (men & women as bottoms, by the by. don't open the link at work.). they're not a real threat, since i live in a city where millions of gays and lesbians are fucking right now and it in no way affects me. they're an abstract threat, for a couple of reasons. first of all, gays & lesbians threaten traditionally held gender roles. if men can be homemakers and women can be breadwinners, that kind of ruins the women-are-meant-to-be-the-ones-without-a-career argument. it also ruins the argument that women are meant to be the soft, giving nurturers, while men exist to enforce boundaries, support the family, and teach kids about strength, or some such shit. and conservatives cling to their gender roles. they think gender roles are both biblical and biological, 'cause the bible is such a great fucking authority on biology.
but this is the current culture war, and conservatives have lost so many already. i think conservatives feel they're owed a culture war victory, even if it's fleeting. conservatives lost on slavery, married women's rights, women's suffrage, the right to unionize, anti-semitism, racial equality, women's equality, real religious freedom (not the fake kind for christians only), and hollywood. sorry, conservatives. we liberals have been on the right side of history just a few too many times. and yes, sometimes we're a little smug about it. i'll grant you that. maybe you could stop pretending that you can keep whatever group you currently hate the most in second-class status forever (well, actually i don't know- do you hate gays more than arabs? or liberals? or illegal aliens? please let me know). whenever you do that, you're practically begging to be the bad guy in any future historical movie. especially since you lost hollywood.
conservatives will say they oppose gay marriage being "imposed" by the courts. last i checked, the courts can't "impose" marriage on anyone, for any reason. only consenting adults or older teenagers with their parents' permission can get married. so who's getting gay marriage "imposed" on them? what bullshit. courts can't even force churches, synagogues, or any religious institution to perform a single marriage. catholic churches don't re-marry divorced people. no one "imposes" this on the catholic church, not even the courts. conservatives have no problems with courts deciding people can't sue corporations for faulty medical devices, or interpreting the time limit on sex discrimination claims. conservatives have no problem with those impositions. conservatives have no problem with courts striking down marijuana reform or assisted suicide. conservatives were over-fucking-joyed when the supreme court decided that washington d.c. cannot ban handgun ownership. that's some fucking judicial activism against democratically enacted laws. so conservatives, dears, you don't really have a problem with courts "imposing" things. you just have a problem with a court allowing something you don't like. please, try being honest. that way, we could have a real discussion.
conservatives also tell us that gay marriage is radical. actually, gays are trying to be just like straights. it's not radical to want to get married just like straights can. it's not radical to want a life-long relationship with another adult who you love and loves you in return, and it's not radical that the state recognize that relationship. note to conservatives: the state's been doing that for a long time, just not for my gay co-workers, or mary cheney. that high horse is lame- you might want to get off it. it would be radical is gays wanted to outlaw marriage for everyone. that would be radical. wanting to be just like the vast majority is not radical. it's conformist. i've provided links to online dictionary definitions, in case you're interested.
so conservatives, i'm tired of your excuses for opposing same-sex marriage. i'm tired of them because they're dishonest. they're so dishonest my intelligence as a homo sapien is insulted. i'm tired of them because even a cursory knowledge of the recent california supreme court decision, history, actual gays or lesbians, and even the bible is enough to swat these rantings down. try getting a real reason to oppose same-sex marriage. or at least move on to different lies.
sincerely,
culuriel
p.s.- oh, and by the way, mary cheney, your kid is a political issue. when you actively campaign for a political party that has done everything it can to legalize discrimination against you, refuses to include you in hate crimes law, insists you pose a greater threat to america than terrorism does, you better believe your fucking lesbian family is a political issue. your political party thinks that equality under the law and toleration are the "gay" agenda. i always thought it was the "human" agenda, but that's probably why i'm a liberal and you campaign for people who would hate you if you weren't dick's kid (trust me, they would).
please stop telling me you don't hate gays. please also stop telling me you're just trying to protect marriage. you are the people who run ex-gay ministries to pray the gay the away. you are the ones who don't want gays near your children. one of you even blamed gays (and anybody else with a sex life for that matter) for wall street's meltdown. you hate gays. you hate them bad. and you haven't managed to protect marriage from a goddamned thing. you even let this guy get married. you let this guy get divorced. twice. this guy you love has been married and divorced three fucking times. you still love him. you still listen to him. you don't really give a shit about marriage. especially not if you'd like these two to wed. here's something that marriage actually needs to be protected from. get to it. although, if you really wanted marriage to truly be biblical, you'd actually have to support the FLDS. the actual marriage laws set forth by the old testament, jesus, and paul, are almost never adhered to today. in fact, what we here in 21st century america call marriage bears almost no resemblance to any marriage that happened in biblical times. if you're a widow, your dead husband's brother is neither required nor expected to marry you. in fact, it's considered a little odd. women aren't men's property in marriage any more. we don't even have to change our last names if we don't want to. nobody has to be a virgin to marry (tried to think of a dirty joke here, but couldn't. sorry). you don't even need a religious ceremony. so you conservatives will just have to fucking stop with the defending biblical marriage horseshit. america abandoned biblical marriage ages ago, and is better for it.
personally, i'd prefer it if these two people could wed. they have a child already, they've been together for 15 years already, and both women seem mature and experienced enough to make that kind of long term decision. but this marriage is apparently some evil that cannot be loosed on america, or we'll lose the invisible sky daddy's protection. or he won't crack a smile at us anymore. i know three gay men at work, all of them with long-term partners, one of them raising a kid with a partner. they could handle marriage. they already do handle marriage. they do the work of maintaining a relationship, raising a kid, and maintaining property together. people who do these things are entitled to state recognition for it. straight people get state recognition for much less, or much worse. hell, even this was a legal marriage.
just who the fuck are gays and lesbians a threat to, anyway? straights are starting to enjoy anal sex as much as the village people ever did (men & women as bottoms, by the by. don't open the link at work.). they're not a real threat, since i live in a city where millions of gays and lesbians are fucking right now and it in no way affects me. they're an abstract threat, for a couple of reasons. first of all, gays & lesbians threaten traditionally held gender roles. if men can be homemakers and women can be breadwinners, that kind of ruins the women-are-meant-to-be-the-ones-without-a-career argument. it also ruins the argument that women are meant to be the soft, giving nurturers, while men exist to enforce boundaries, support the family, and teach kids about strength, or some such shit. and conservatives cling to their gender roles. they think gender roles are both biblical and biological, 'cause the bible is such a great fucking authority on biology.
but this is the current culture war, and conservatives have lost so many already. i think conservatives feel they're owed a culture war victory, even if it's fleeting. conservatives lost on slavery, married women's rights, women's suffrage, the right to unionize, anti-semitism, racial equality, women's equality, real religious freedom (not the fake kind for christians only), and hollywood. sorry, conservatives. we liberals have been on the right side of history just a few too many times. and yes, sometimes we're a little smug about it. i'll grant you that. maybe you could stop pretending that you can keep whatever group you currently hate the most in second-class status forever (well, actually i don't know- do you hate gays more than arabs? or liberals? or illegal aliens? please let me know). whenever you do that, you're practically begging to be the bad guy in any future historical movie. especially since you lost hollywood.
conservatives will say they oppose gay marriage being "imposed" by the courts. last i checked, the courts can't "impose" marriage on anyone, for any reason. only consenting adults or older teenagers with their parents' permission can get married. so who's getting gay marriage "imposed" on them? what bullshit. courts can't even force churches, synagogues, or any religious institution to perform a single marriage. catholic churches don't re-marry divorced people. no one "imposes" this on the catholic church, not even the courts. conservatives have no problems with courts deciding people can't sue corporations for faulty medical devices, or interpreting the time limit on sex discrimination claims. conservatives have no problem with those impositions. conservatives have no problem with courts striking down marijuana reform or assisted suicide. conservatives were over-fucking-joyed when the supreme court decided that washington d.c. cannot ban handgun ownership. that's some fucking judicial activism against democratically enacted laws. so conservatives, dears, you don't really have a problem with courts "imposing" things. you just have a problem with a court allowing something you don't like. please, try being honest. that way, we could have a real discussion.
conservatives also tell us that gay marriage is radical. actually, gays are trying to be just like straights. it's not radical to want to get married just like straights can. it's not radical to want a life-long relationship with another adult who you love and loves you in return, and it's not radical that the state recognize that relationship. note to conservatives: the state's been doing that for a long time, just not for my gay co-workers, or mary cheney. that high horse is lame- you might want to get off it. it would be radical is gays wanted to outlaw marriage for everyone. that would be radical. wanting to be just like the vast majority is not radical. it's conformist. i've provided links to online dictionary definitions, in case you're interested.
so conservatives, i'm tired of your excuses for opposing same-sex marriage. i'm tired of them because they're dishonest. they're so dishonest my intelligence as a homo sapien is insulted. i'm tired of them because even a cursory knowledge of the recent california supreme court decision, history, actual gays or lesbians, and even the bible is enough to swat these rantings down. try getting a real reason to oppose same-sex marriage. or at least move on to different lies.
sincerely,
culuriel
p.s.- oh, and by the way, mary cheney, your kid is a political issue. when you actively campaign for a political party that has done everything it can to legalize discrimination against you, refuses to include you in hate crimes law, insists you pose a greater threat to america than terrorism does, you better believe your fucking lesbian family is a political issue. your political party thinks that equality under the law and toleration are the "gay" agenda. i always thought it was the "human" agenda, but that's probably why i'm a liberal and you campaign for people who would hate you if you weren't dick's kid (trust me, they would).
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
this is why we have castration
recently, an islamic militia in somalia stoned a 13 year-old girl to death. the militia members forced her into a pit in an athletic arena, buried her upto her neck, and stoned her. at least once, nurses dug her out to pronounce her still alive, so she could be reburied and the stoning could resume.
this girl's brutal murder goes beyond anything i've heard of in just plain barbaric cruelty, and i live in a country with more than its fair share of serial killers. no other record of human depravity has stayed with me like this has. it's the young age of the victim, her poverty, her powerlessness, her vulnerability versus these powerful, armed, grown, intolerant, hateful men. she never had a chance.
the motive is pretty clear, at least to a woman's libber like myself: the girl had reported to this militia, which is a substitute for any actual government in the area, that several militia members had raped her. the militia killed her, in a brutal way, to silence her and intimidate every single female still living. don't report rape, the militia has told every woman under their "jurisdiction".
i think of this poor girl, named Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, slowly, painfully, degradingly dying by people throwing rocks at her. i think of how much blood, bone, and brain matter must have been splattered all over before she died. i think what kind of mindless piece of shit can actually submit a child to such a thing, a child who had already been horribly wronged. it is actually quite plain- it is themselves these militia members really hate, and violence against women and girls is a convenient substitute for taking out their self-loathing on themselves.
misogynist literature is full of references to women tempting men, bringing their downfall, emasculating men, etc. men are especially repulsed by the "power" women have over them sexually. men hate that they can be attracted to women who they hate, or who don't want them. men hate how difficult it is to control their sexual urges. men feel less than human in lust- they constantly refer to sexual attraction as throwing off their civilized, "human" selves and feeling like beasts. men have always resented women for this feeling, because men have always blamed women for the feeling. that it originates in them is irrelevant. that a man can learn self-control is irrelevant. it is woman's fault he feels lust, and less than human. it is woman's fault that he can lust after a woman who doesn't want him. and woman must pay. that 13 year-old girl who died a bloody, painful, horrible death represented to these miltia men everything they hate about themselves. she was somebody to blame, so her rapists could deny being animals not only to the public, but also to themselves. in the end, based on the press this is getting, they have only fooled themselves, and only until the next girl comes along.
so here's a little poetic justice, because this particular group of dickheads is muslim. how ironic and yet perfectly fitting is it that we call men who treat women and girls this way pigs?
this girl's brutal murder goes beyond anything i've heard of in just plain barbaric cruelty, and i live in a country with more than its fair share of serial killers. no other record of human depravity has stayed with me like this has. it's the young age of the victim, her poverty, her powerlessness, her vulnerability versus these powerful, armed, grown, intolerant, hateful men. she never had a chance.
the motive is pretty clear, at least to a woman's libber like myself: the girl had reported to this militia, which is a substitute for any actual government in the area, that several militia members had raped her. the militia killed her, in a brutal way, to silence her and intimidate every single female still living. don't report rape, the militia has told every woman under their "jurisdiction".
i think of this poor girl, named Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, slowly, painfully, degradingly dying by people throwing rocks at her. i think of how much blood, bone, and brain matter must have been splattered all over before she died. i think what kind of mindless piece of shit can actually submit a child to such a thing, a child who had already been horribly wronged. it is actually quite plain- it is themselves these militia members really hate, and violence against women and girls is a convenient substitute for taking out their self-loathing on themselves.
misogynist literature is full of references to women tempting men, bringing their downfall, emasculating men, etc. men are especially repulsed by the "power" women have over them sexually. men hate that they can be attracted to women who they hate, or who don't want them. men hate how difficult it is to control their sexual urges. men feel less than human in lust- they constantly refer to sexual attraction as throwing off their civilized, "human" selves and feeling like beasts. men have always resented women for this feeling, because men have always blamed women for the feeling. that it originates in them is irrelevant. that a man can learn self-control is irrelevant. it is woman's fault he feels lust, and less than human. it is woman's fault that he can lust after a woman who doesn't want him. and woman must pay. that 13 year-old girl who died a bloody, painful, horrible death represented to these miltia men everything they hate about themselves. she was somebody to blame, so her rapists could deny being animals not only to the public, but also to themselves. in the end, based on the press this is getting, they have only fooled themselves, and only until the next girl comes along.
so here's a little poetic justice, because this particular group of dickheads is muslim. how ironic and yet perfectly fitting is it that we call men who treat women and girls this way pigs?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)