Senator James Inhofe, Republican from Oaklahoma, made this little announcement today:
"As you see here, and I think this is maybe the most important prop we’ll have during the entire debate, my wife and I have been married 47 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. I’m really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we’ve never had a divorce or any kind of a homosexual relationship."
Um, Sen. Inhofe, given your quite clear anti-gay stance, I have a question: If one of your kids or grandkids were gay, knowing your views, do you actually think he or she would tell you?
(Hat tip to my Mom, who actually posed that question.)
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Devil Day, Part II
Reflections on 6-6-06, on 7-6-06 (or in Canadian Gov style 06-6-6 and 06-6-7; for you Americans 6-6-06 and 6-7-06): If you drink with the thought that the world is about to end so damn the consequences, and it doesn't, be prepared for a nasty hangover.
But to the boys and girl with whom I planned on seeing Argmageddon, or staring the Beast down, cocktail in hand: love you all.
But to the boys and girl with whom I planned on seeing Argmageddon, or staring the Beast down, cocktail in hand: love you all.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
O'Connor's C-17s (part 2)
An open letter to Parliament, published in the Canadian American Strategic Review (good reading for anyone interested in Canadian defence procurement policy, or lack-thereof), complaining about Defence Minister O'Connor's intention to single-source the Canadian Forces' new strategic airlifter. By purchasing the Boeing C-17, Porsche of airlifters, Canadian taxpayers may be on the hook for a very expensive piece of equipment to operate, while keeping the residents of southern California comfortably employed (apologies to Dean).
Also in the Review, this interesting offer from the Russians for a MUCH cheaper airlifter.
Will O'Connor consider it?
Will the Opposition pick up on this? (Assuming they've figured out how a debate in Parliament works)
Will this purchase become, dare I say it, Harper's magical fourth Achilles Heel?
Also in the Review, this interesting offer from the Russians for a MUCH cheaper airlifter.
Will O'Connor consider it?
Will the Opposition pick up on this? (Assuming they've figured out how a debate in Parliament works)
Will this purchase become, dare I say it, Harper's magical fourth Achilles Heel?
Well, when put that way, it's kinda embarassing...
Confusion over debate procedure on the part of the Opposition resulted in the budget being passed unanimously today.
Seems like a funny trivia story, but look at how Bloomberg, news sources for the financial world, described it:
Canadian Lawmakers Accidentally Pass Budget in House
Seems like a funny trivia story, but look at how Bloomberg, news sources for the financial world, described it:
Canadian Lawmakers Accidentally Pass Budget in House
June 6 (Bloomberg) -- The Canadian government's C$227 billion ($204 billion) budget was passed in the House of Commons after opposition lawmakers accidentally failed to stand up to debate the spending plan.
That's right. They forgot to stand up, and $227 billion dollars worth of budget was passed without any debate. Not only are the Liberals a danger to themselves now, they are a danger to the proper functioning of Parliament!
Devil Day
I really hope that most mad Christians are out there praying away and hoping the world doesn't end. Here's a little gem from the Independent (my emphasis):
Exactly. The sooner all the born against piss off, the sooner we can actually start to deal with real issues.
Others believe today will draw us closer to "the rapture" - when the Lord calls his Christian faithful up to the heavens. (Non-believing mortals will know this has happened because millions of born-again evangelicals will disappear overnight; a not-altogether unwelcome development for atheists.)
Exactly. The sooner all the born against piss off, the sooner we can actually start to deal with real issues.
Brokeback Mounties (again)
Well, it seems at least that the mainstream media here is taking notice.
It would be nice, at least, if some of the nutcases here who are planning on constitutionalizing banning gay marriage would take a look to the north and see what's going on. Let's look at where we stand:
It would be nice, at least, if some of the nutcases here who are planning on constitutionalizing banning gay marriage would take a look to the north and see what's going on. Let's look at where we stand:
- The Canadian forces have no problem with same-sex marriage and indeed, last June two servicemen were married. Gay men and women serve openly. The Canadian military hasn't fallen to pieces.
- The Mounties have no problem with same-sex marriage. Gay men and women serve openly. They're still getting their men.
- We've had same-sex marriage for almost 3 years. The straight divorce rate hasn't spiked, nor has the marriage rate dropped. Canadian society hasn't fallen apart. Bestiality hasn't been legalized, nor paedophilia, nor polygamy. Religions have not been forced to solemnize gay marriages if they don't want to.
- God clearly approves (assuming His existence). Since gay marriage started, Canada's economy is going full steam ahead, we're running budget surpluses, the weather's been good, we caught the terrorists before they did anything (ahem, Pat "God will punish you" Robertson), and every single man and woman and child, gay or straight, has healthcare. In contrast, the US is in massive deficit, stuck in a messy war, has lost a major city, has almost half the population without healthcare, and has a President who's basically considered the worst ever. If there are meant to be Divine consequences for gay marriage, well, it seems that they're good.
In short, the Canadian example refutes every single argument against gay marriage that fanatics here raise. It doesn't threaten straight marriage. It doesn't increase divorce. There's no slippery slope. It doesn't threaten the military. God isn't hurling lightning bolts.
All that they're left with is: "We think it's icky." At its core, this Marriage Amendment is nothing more than rank, blatant hate.
A proud day for America that it's even being discussed, and by no less than someone as august as the President himself.
Pundit Cliché Watch
Forget my monitoring of Chantal Hebert's hair, it's far more rewarding to monitor her use of "Achilles Heel" .
On April 19th, it was Charest .
On May 10th, it was Afganistan .
An on June 5th, in Chantal Hebert's Monday column in the Star , Stephen Harper magically grows another heel!
"...many of the issues that may have legs in the next campaign dovetail with the priorities of Canada's major cities. That is never more true than when it comes to the environment, the issue that has so far emerged as the Achilles heel of the government. As the next election inches forward, it will increasingly become a sensitive matter for the Conservatives."
That's three Achilles' Heels for poor Mr. Harper.
On April 19th, it was Charest .
On May 10th, it was Afganistan .
An on June 5th, in Chantal Hebert's Monday column in the Star , Stephen Harper magically grows another heel!
"...many of the issues that may have legs in the next campaign dovetail with the priorities of Canada's major cities. That is never more true than when it comes to the environment, the issue that has so far emerged as the Achilles heel of the government. As the next election inches forward, it will increasingly become a sensitive matter for the Conservatives."
That's three Achilles' Heels for poor Mr. Harper.
The Peace Tower
I have to say, and I know Mike agrees, that the idea that those 17 terrorists were going to bomb the Peace Tower shocks me to the core.
Now: Let me say right now I am all for due process of law. Try them in an open court and give them every protection. If they are not guilty, let them go. I do not - not for an instant - think they should get any other treatment. The reason why we as a society are better than nutcases and terrorists (and most countries) is that we believe in innocent until proven guilty and we don't have secret prisons and we don't torture.
But - the Peace Tower? What part of PEACE didn't they get? The Peace Tower is not triumphant. The Peace Tower is a monument to grief, not to glory. The Memorial Chamber inside is one of the most solemn and moving places I've been to. [ps take the virtual tour. Read the plaques on the walls.] More pics here, here, here, and here.
The Peace Tower is nothing about what Islamic radicals complain. The Peace Tower is the physical statement of how our small and beautiful country has been dragged into wars that were not - ever - of its choosing. The Peace Tower is that momument to our country's intense desire for peace, for tolerance, for kindness. The Peace Tower has no injustice, no oppression, no cruelty, no imperialism.
Try them and give them full process of law. But if they are convicted - and I hate that I sound bloodthirsty - let them hang. I would not feel this way if they had planned an attack on an office building, or even on the Throne itself.
But to target the Peace Tower means to target Canada and our values - our values of kindness and openness and tolerance and diversity and multiculturalism - is too much.
Those that would attack the Tower reject Canada. They have no place among us.
Now: Let me say right now I am all for due process of law. Try them in an open court and give them every protection. If they are not guilty, let them go. I do not - not for an instant - think they should get any other treatment. The reason why we as a society are better than nutcases and terrorists (and most countries) is that we believe in innocent until proven guilty and we don't have secret prisons and we don't torture.
But - the Peace Tower? What part of PEACE didn't they get? The Peace Tower is not triumphant. The Peace Tower is a monument to grief, not to glory. The Memorial Chamber inside is one of the most solemn and moving places I've been to. [ps take the virtual tour. Read the plaques on the walls.] More pics here, here, here, and here.
The Peace Tower is nothing about what Islamic radicals complain. The Peace Tower is the physical statement of how our small and beautiful country has been dragged into wars that were not - ever - of its choosing. The Peace Tower is that momument to our country's intense desire for peace, for tolerance, for kindness. The Peace Tower has no injustice, no oppression, no cruelty, no imperialism.
Try them and give them full process of law. But if they are convicted - and I hate that I sound bloodthirsty - let them hang. I would not feel this way if they had planned an attack on an office building, or even on the Throne itself.
But to target the Peace Tower means to target Canada and our values - our values of kindness and openness and tolerance and diversity and multiculturalism - is too much.
Those that would attack the Tower reject Canada. They have no place among us.
Distracter in Chief
Eugene Robinson gets it right in the Post (Washington, not National). As does Froomkin.
Iraq is a mess. Iran wants a bomb. North Korea has one. The deficit is skyrocketing. New Orleans is gone. The world hates us.
And the singular most pressing thing is the definition of marriage. More important than anything else - it's time to talk Constitutional Amendment.
The arguments as to why this is a solution in search of a problem are so old that I'll not repeat them. But I was incensed at the CNN headline today. I don't remember specifics but it spoke of the "fight against gay marriage."
What FIGHT? I mean, to say there's a fight against gay marriage implies that gay marriage actually exists or might exist, and really, this country's going the OPPOSITE direction. We've LOST. How many states have amendments to their constitution?
[Aside: this is why referenda are so flawed: The point of constitutional bills of rights are to protect the minority from the will of the majority. If you allow a constitutional amendment by ballot, you hand the protection of rights back to the majority, and the constitution becomes nothing more than a statute.]
And to all those who think this is a state-by-state issue, I say this: BULLSHIT. Fine, I accept that I have to be pragmatic, that the coastal states and those that border Canada will have gay marriage and the rest of the country won't. California Republic, baby. But I don't like it, conceptually. When have we in the US ever accepted that civil rights stop at the border between one state and another? Didn't we fight a fucking civil war about that?
I love it: the country that brags to the world about how great it is, is currently debating enshrining discrimination into its constitution, and who it is exactly that can be tortured.
Well fucking done. I hope the fools who voted for this monster are proud of themselves.
Iraq is a mess. Iran wants a bomb. North Korea has one. The deficit is skyrocketing. New Orleans is gone. The world hates us.
And the singular most pressing thing is the definition of marriage. More important than anything else - it's time to talk Constitutional Amendment.
The arguments as to why this is a solution in search of a problem are so old that I'll not repeat them. But I was incensed at the CNN headline today. I don't remember specifics but it spoke of the "fight against gay marriage."
What FIGHT? I mean, to say there's a fight against gay marriage implies that gay marriage actually exists or might exist, and really, this country's going the OPPOSITE direction. We've LOST. How many states have amendments to their constitution?
[Aside: this is why referenda are so flawed: The point of constitutional bills of rights are to protect the minority from the will of the majority. If you allow a constitutional amendment by ballot, you hand the protection of rights back to the majority, and the constitution becomes nothing more than a statute.]
And to all those who think this is a state-by-state issue, I say this: BULLSHIT. Fine, I accept that I have to be pragmatic, that the coastal states and those that border Canada will have gay marriage and the rest of the country won't. California Republic, baby. But I don't like it, conceptually. When have we in the US ever accepted that civil rights stop at the border between one state and another? Didn't we fight a fucking civil war about that?
I love it: the country that brags to the world about how great it is, is currently debating enshrining discrimination into its constitution, and who it is exactly that can be tortured.
Well fucking done. I hope the fools who voted for this monster are proud of themselves.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Hereditary Elite
I really hate it when Americans go on and on about how the UK is class-based and the US isn't.
Maybe that was the case back in 1782 or whenever. It's not now.
The obscene gap between the poor and the rich here, the increasing lack of social mobility - it exists far more in the US than it does in the UK, or, for that matter, Canada/Australia/NZ - the other remaining monarchies.
And now, they're poised to make it worse. This is like my strange mystification as to why poor people vote Republican. It's marketing: Bush peddles his tax cuts like they help people - everyone remember his "the average tax cut will be $1000." Well, yes. But the median will be $45. So most people think, oh yeah, it's great, the estate tax sucks, even though only 2% of households pay it.
Crazy. The country is run by lunatics.
Maybe that was the case back in 1782 or whenever. It's not now.
The obscene gap between the poor and the rich here, the increasing lack of social mobility - it exists far more in the US than it does in the UK, or, for that matter, Canada/Australia/NZ - the other remaining monarchies.
And now, they're poised to make it worse. This is like my strange mystification as to why poor people vote Republican. It's marketing: Bush peddles his tax cuts like they help people - everyone remember his "the average tax cut will be $1000." Well, yes. But the median will be $45. So most people think, oh yeah, it's great, the estate tax sucks, even though only 2% of households pay it.
Crazy. The country is run by lunatics.
Lions: 1, Christians: 0
This story just warms my heart. Apparently some guy lowered himself into a lion pit at a zoo, and announced that God would save him, if He exists. Guess not.
Though maybe God was just distracted by what was going on in the Rose Garden.
Though maybe God was just distracted by what was going on in the Rose Garden.
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Why won't they leave us alone?
The Gay Marriage thing. Again. Using the Constitution not as a limit on governmental power, but as a limit on personal freedom. Tomorrow, it all gets going. Even though it has no chance of passing, and even though gay marriage isn't exactly blooming around the country, it really looks good to stand up and get all pious about "family values" and sanctity of marriage (though, of course, "sanctity" is a religious term and civil marriage is not religious).
Over at Americablog, they're doing an interesting project to see just how many Republican senators have either divorced, cheated on their wives, etc., - basically to see just how many of those standing up for "family values" and the "sanctity of marriage" are saying "do as I say, not as I do."
And, of course, Mass. has the lowest divorce rate in the country, while all the red states have the highest. Apparently, the red state divorce rate is 27% higher than in blue states.
So we get for the next few weeks to endure the admiable spectacle of a bunch of old, straight men standing up and beating up on a small minority that has no way to defend itself in the Senate, that has only a few Senators who will stand up and say something other than "I'm against gay marriage but against changing the constitution."
Such a fudge by them: they know they have to pander to social conservatives, but can't lose their left-wing base. The reason why this country is going conservative is because Republicans stand up and state their beliefs. Democrats say they agree with the Republicans (gay marriage is bad), but differ as to the means. Where are the true leaders, the people who look forward rather than backwards, the ones who want to expand freedom and justice, rather than limit it?
For our nongay readers, and we hope you are many, it is worth stating just how much of a pain being gay can sometimes be. Example: I live in easily the most liberal city in the country (West Hollywood), surrounded by Los Angeles (itself liberal), in the most liberal state in the country. I work at a deeply liberal law firm. Yet still, in almost every social situation I'm in, I have to stop and assess the gay thing. Can I be out to this person? Will my career suffer if I'm out? I'm meeting a group of people, do I have to hide? Will I get beaten up as I walk home from the bar? Will I lose respect if I'm out? This, also, from someone who's grown up with supportive family, without hardship, with a good education and a job that pays well enough to ignore vast portions of the world and to live where I want to live. Imagine what being gay is like to someone growing up with ultra-conservative parents or in a conservative town, who doesn't have the education and self-confidence to turn the other cheek, who doesn't have a great network of friends for support? I can't imagine how tough that is.
And when, in our halls of power, the powerful stand up and say no, your love isn't equal to ours, your values are bad, your life isn't worth as much, and your love actually is destroying our own, and you're disordered - well, it makes it that much more difficult.
Over at Americablog, they're doing an interesting project to see just how many Republican senators have either divorced, cheated on their wives, etc., - basically to see just how many of those standing up for "family values" and the "sanctity of marriage" are saying "do as I say, not as I do."
And, of course, Mass. has the lowest divorce rate in the country, while all the red states have the highest. Apparently, the red state divorce rate is 27% higher than in blue states.
So we get for the next few weeks to endure the admiable spectacle of a bunch of old, straight men standing up and beating up on a small minority that has no way to defend itself in the Senate, that has only a few Senators who will stand up and say something other than "I'm against gay marriage but against changing the constitution."
Such a fudge by them: they know they have to pander to social conservatives, but can't lose their left-wing base. The reason why this country is going conservative is because Republicans stand up and state their beliefs. Democrats say they agree with the Republicans (gay marriage is bad), but differ as to the means. Where are the true leaders, the people who look forward rather than backwards, the ones who want to expand freedom and justice, rather than limit it?
For our nongay readers, and we hope you are many, it is worth stating just how much of a pain being gay can sometimes be. Example: I live in easily the most liberal city in the country (West Hollywood), surrounded by Los Angeles (itself liberal), in the most liberal state in the country. I work at a deeply liberal law firm. Yet still, in almost every social situation I'm in, I have to stop and assess the gay thing. Can I be out to this person? Will my career suffer if I'm out? I'm meeting a group of people, do I have to hide? Will I get beaten up as I walk home from the bar? Will I lose respect if I'm out? This, also, from someone who's grown up with supportive family, without hardship, with a good education and a job that pays well enough to ignore vast portions of the world and to live where I want to live. Imagine what being gay is like to someone growing up with ultra-conservative parents or in a conservative town, who doesn't have the education and self-confidence to turn the other cheek, who doesn't have a great network of friends for support? I can't imagine how tough that is.
And when, in our halls of power, the powerful stand up and say no, your love isn't equal to ours, your values are bad, your life isn't worth as much, and your love actually is destroying our own, and you're disordered - well, it makes it that much more difficult.
Saturday, June 03, 2006
God it really is Canada Bashing Day
From the Washington Post, this little gem:
Annoying? Huh? Maybe it's just that we seem annoying when we know we're right. The scandal of this system is shocking. I think I've said before, I have, in theory, "excellent" healthcare. Yet I go to a doctor (I have POP) and I find out, oops, not in network, here's your bill.
A friend of mine - totally healthy, 29 year old, nonsmoker, etc - lost his healthcare (i.e. quit jobs), and now can't get insurance because of a MINOR pre-existing condition.
It's here in the US where some people, no matter what, CAN'T get healthcare. It's here where 25% of costs are based on administration and profit (mostly spent fighting claims), compared to 2% in Canada. It's here where 45% don't have healthcare, as opposed to exactly 0% in Canada.
So maybe it's right to be annoying.
(Oh, and for the record, I'm not pathetic and friendless. It's 1115 pm and I'm in my office working, just taking a break from the monotony of what I'm doing . . .)
It is pretty ridiculous that we spend twice as much per person on health care as citizens of other advanced countries -- the usual example is Canadians, because they are so nearby and so annoying about it -- yet we are less healthy, by standards such as longevity.
Annoying? Huh? Maybe it's just that we seem annoying when we know we're right. The scandal of this system is shocking. I think I've said before, I have, in theory, "excellent" healthcare. Yet I go to a doctor (I have POP) and I find out, oops, not in network, here's your bill.
A friend of mine - totally healthy, 29 year old, nonsmoker, etc - lost his healthcare (i.e. quit jobs), and now can't get insurance because of a MINOR pre-existing condition.
It's here in the US where some people, no matter what, CAN'T get healthcare. It's here where 25% of costs are based on administration and profit (mostly spent fighting claims), compared to 2% in Canada. It's here where 45% don't have healthcare, as opposed to exactly 0% in Canada.
So maybe it's right to be annoying.
(Oh, and for the record, I'm not pathetic and friendless. It's 1115 pm and I'm in my office working, just taking a break from the monotony of what I'm doing . . .)
Friday, June 02, 2006
Cuddling other men makes you straight?
Okay, this is just too good. Apparently, to stop being gay, you have to beat a pillow with a racket saying, "Mom! Mom! Why! Did! You! Do! This! To! Me?!" and cuddle another man. What? It apparently restores a father-son relationship. Now, it's not cuddling another older man (how very greek). It's just cuddling another man.
Now, as far as I remember, most men, 'mo or breeder, don't exactly cuddle their fathers after about 2. But as adults? I thought it was enjoying cuddling men that made me gay.
I mean, surely if it's working and the guy's going straight, as soon as he started hugging the other guy, they'd both leap apart, yelling "Dude! That's like totally not cool! You know I'm not gay, man! Let's go to Hooters and pick up chicks, bro, and down some brewskies!"
(Bonus to our commentators: is that how straight people actually talk?)
Now, as far as I remember, most men, 'mo or breeder, don't exactly cuddle their fathers after about 2. But as adults? I thought it was enjoying cuddling men that made me gay.
I mean, surely if it's working and the guy's going straight, as soon as he started hugging the other guy, they'd both leap apart, yelling "Dude! That's like totally not cool! You know I'm not gay, man! Let's go to Hooters and pick up chicks, bro, and down some brewskies!"
(Bonus to our commentators: is that how straight people actually talk?)
Me think he doth protest too much
Once again, Sullivan's pretending he's the guy who was right all along.
Here he is, raging against all the anti-gay forces out there in the US.
Well, guess what, Andrew? You helped these people get to power. You defended Bush and the Bushites. You constantly take swipes at the Democratic party.
Oh, sure, maybe suddenly you've had some sort of conversion on the road to Provincetown, but that's too little, too late.
The Republican party's hostility to gay people is not a new thing. It isn't something that suddenly leaked out. The Republicans have been playing footsie with the religious right for a long time.
Sure, the Democrats aren't great, but compare to the Republican party, they're fantastic.
And I'm sorry, I won't be buying any nonsense about how you agree with some Republican policies and therefore you can forgive them for their homophobia. That's like a Jew saying that while he doesn't quite like the Nazi party's program when it comes to Jews, he likes the Nazi emphasis on the family and on physical fitness, not to mention job creation (going to war, hm...), so he'll vote NSDAP anyway.
Don't give me that "never again" nonsense. We are where we are thanks to people like you - who looked at the enemy and embraced him, your wheedling excuses notwithstanding ("closet tolerants" my ass - Bush is lobbying for the amendment). The only political party in the US which has done anything for gays is the Democratic party. The only party with institutionalized discrimination against gays is the Republicans.
Maybe I'm just a one-issue voter. I think that's okay. One-issue voting is silly when it's for something minor. But when one party is staunchly, implacably opposed to your civil rights, I think it's prefectly acceptable - and even necessary - to stand up and vote for your right to be considered a full-fledged, equal member of society whose love is just as good as that of anyone else.
Here he is, raging against all the anti-gay forces out there in the US.
Well, guess what, Andrew? You helped these people get to power. You defended Bush and the Bushites. You constantly take swipes at the Democratic party.
Oh, sure, maybe suddenly you've had some sort of conversion on the road to Provincetown, but that's too little, too late.
The Republican party's hostility to gay people is not a new thing. It isn't something that suddenly leaked out. The Republicans have been playing footsie with the religious right for a long time.
Sure, the Democrats aren't great, but compare to the Republican party, they're fantastic.
And I'm sorry, I won't be buying any nonsense about how you agree with some Republican policies and therefore you can forgive them for their homophobia. That's like a Jew saying that while he doesn't quite like the Nazi party's program when it comes to Jews, he likes the Nazi emphasis on the family and on physical fitness, not to mention job creation (going to war, hm...), so he'll vote NSDAP anyway.
Don't give me that "never again" nonsense. We are where we are thanks to people like you - who looked at the enemy and embraced him, your wheedling excuses notwithstanding ("closet tolerants" my ass - Bush is lobbying for the amendment). The only political party in the US which has done anything for gays is the Democratic party. The only party with institutionalized discrimination against gays is the Republicans.
Maybe I'm just a one-issue voter. I think that's okay. One-issue voting is silly when it's for something minor. But when one party is staunchly, implacably opposed to your civil rights, I think it's prefectly acceptable - and even necessary - to stand up and vote for your right to be considered a full-fledged, equal member of society whose love is just as good as that of anyone else.
Unbelievable
Joe Volpe's comments on the youth donations scandal:
Mr. Volpe, who was attending a leadership fundraiser at an East Side Mario's restaurant in Edmonton last night, said the donations are legal, but he gave the money back because he "wanted to set a different standard."
He said he didn't know about the donation until recently and since the story broke in The Globe he has spoken to the Shechtman children and their mother, Mary.
"Apparently, I had seen the kids when I went to their school and gave a talk during the [federal election] campaign. They went back home and said 'that's a guy we want to help, we want to support.' The parents told them there would be a good time to do that and here is the time. So, I gather they thought about it as a family and they did what they did," he said.
"You might say that's a lot of money for kids. It's not a family that's unaccustomed to having those resources.
"[Now] they feel sorry for me, because someone has made something negative about their interest in being engaged."
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Christian Violence Hypocricy
I'm sure we've all heard about mad Christians lamenting that there's too much violence on television, in the movies, etc. They think it's bad for our kids. They don't like violence (or smut, of course) anywhere.
Except, of course, when it's against non-Christians. The "Left Behind" series now has a game. Recall that the Left Behind series deals with the end of the world and the anti-christ taking over the world.
So, in the game, marketed to kids, you can play the role of a true believer and blow away all those enemies of Christ: specifically, the UN, gays, muslims, hindus - you name it. Apparently as you kill them, you say "Praise the Lord." Oh and I hear that in the game, possibly also the movie, the Anti-Christ was made from the genetic material of two gay people, pleasingly tarring us with fathering Satan.
Heady stuff.
Is this, then, acceptable to Christians: Preach love and Christ, but then think it's totally okay to send out games for kids where they can blow up basically anyone who's not an evangellical Christian? Teach these kids that it's a-okay to shoot jews, muslims, homos, lesbians, and (presumably given the anti-UN sland), foreigners?
Great - well done Christians. Another step forward to making the world a better place.
Except, of course, when it's against non-Christians. The "Left Behind" series now has a game. Recall that the Left Behind series deals with the end of the world and the anti-christ taking over the world.
So, in the game, marketed to kids, you can play the role of a true believer and blow away all those enemies of Christ: specifically, the UN, gays, muslims, hindus - you name it. Apparently as you kill them, you say "Praise the Lord." Oh and I hear that in the game, possibly also the movie, the Anti-Christ was made from the genetic material of two gay people, pleasingly tarring us with fathering Satan.
Heady stuff.
Is this, then, acceptable to Christians: Preach love and Christ, but then think it's totally okay to send out games for kids where they can blow up basically anyone who's not an evangellical Christian? Teach these kids that it's a-okay to shoot jews, muslims, homos, lesbians, and (presumably given the anti-UN sland), foreigners?
Great - well done Christians. Another step forward to making the world a better place.
God, apparently, doesn't answer prayers
This from Sploid: Apparently some mad Southen woman was praying for her relatives, and as she said, "Amen," her house exploded.
So let's see: Every time something good happens after a mad Christian prays, it's God doing a good thing.
But when God does not-so-good things, well, it's just chance/fate/natural.
Uh hun.
So let's see: Every time something good happens after a mad Christian prays, it's God doing a good thing.
But when God does not-so-good things, well, it's just chance/fate/natural.
Uh hun.
Um, the civil war is over
This article is nuts.
It's a story of those running for the Alabama Supreme Court (aside: this is why judges should never be elected.) Recall that Alabama is also the home of Roy "Ten Commandments" Moore, whose smackdown by the 11th Circuit ("If necessary, the court order will be enforced. The rule of law will prevail.") still gets me hard.
Anyway. He's running for governor, but scarier are those running for the Court. Four of the candidates have this crazy idea that the Alabama Supreme Court (and, indeed, any state court) should not be obligated to follow the Federal Supreme Court when it doesn't want to (in their words, when the U.S. Supreme Court is wrong).
Recall, of course, that this is what the southern savages tried during desegregation - saying that the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown was wrong and that they didn't have to follow it.
Um. I don't think there's a serious legal mind in the country who actually thinks that this view is correct. I did a quick poll here at work, and while of course I work for an ultra-liberal law firm's ultra-liberal office in an ultra-liberal city (well, as ultra-liberal as you can be while representing major oil companies), I didn't find a single person who didn't burst out laughing. Comments ranged from "um, didn't we settle this in the civil war?" to "if Alabama elects them and they turn the state back to the dark ages, who cares?"
The Supreme Court is law - and even though we may not like the decisions, we obey them.
But the message here is very Moore-esque: If you don't like the law, you don't have to follow it.
It's a story of those running for the Alabama Supreme Court (aside: this is why judges should never be elected.) Recall that Alabama is also the home of Roy "Ten Commandments" Moore, whose smackdown by the 11th Circuit ("If necessary, the court order will be enforced. The rule of law will prevail.") still gets me hard.
Anyway. He's running for governor, but scarier are those running for the Court. Four of the candidates have this crazy idea that the Alabama Supreme Court (and, indeed, any state court) should not be obligated to follow the Federal Supreme Court when it doesn't want to (in their words, when the U.S. Supreme Court is wrong).
Recall, of course, that this is what the southern savages tried during desegregation - saying that the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown was wrong and that they didn't have to follow it.
Um. I don't think there's a serious legal mind in the country who actually thinks that this view is correct. I did a quick poll here at work, and while of course I work for an ultra-liberal law firm's ultra-liberal office in an ultra-liberal city (well, as ultra-liberal as you can be while representing major oil companies), I didn't find a single person who didn't burst out laughing. Comments ranged from "um, didn't we settle this in the civil war?" to "if Alabama elects them and they turn the state back to the dark ages, who cares?"
The Supreme Court is law - and even though we may not like the decisions, we obey them.
But the message here is very Moore-esque: If you don't like the law, you don't have to follow it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
