Don't Stop the ACLU

Signing off (with parting shots)

2006-08-20T19:16:00.000-04:00

We started this blog about five months ago when STACLU's resident Faulknerian idiot man-child, Gribbit, told us to. I stumbled upon him spewing various lies and utter nonsense, which we've since learned he does quite often, and when I called him on it, he threatened to break my jaw. He would later invite me to visit him in Cleveland for an actual fistfight, but out of shear cowardice (or was it rational thought?), I turned him down. Yes, my relationship with the one they call Gribbit has been a tenuous one.

Thankfully, the rest of the STACLU crew has been more civil, though most are on par with Gribbit when it comes to obtuseness, rhetorical ability, spelling, and grammar. It's been fun arguing with them, both here and on their site, but those days are coming to an end. You see, I've found better things to do than dismantle the arguments of some far-right knuckleheads. They're a hopeless lot anyway, so set in their ways and patterns of thought that no amount of rhetoric can ever pry them from their entrenchments just to the left of Mussolini's corpse. They deal only in outrage. When someone - usually the ACLU - does something they don't like, they're online within minutes bitching about it. They offer few original ideas, other than that the ACLU, its members, anyone to STACLU's left on the political spectrum, anyone with melanin, and anyone who doesn't bow down before Jesus just ain't right in the head.

They can carry on their rage-fest unmolested for all I care. The great thing about people whose only reaction is outrage is that they never accomplish anything, other than voting the wrong people into office who, in turn, never accomplish anything. They're too busy being offended to make any actual change. In the five or so months I've been visiting their site, I've never once seen Stop the ACLU do any ACLU-stopping. It's just bitch, bitch, bitch.

As for me, I have another blog to keep me entertained; however, you can't have the link. I have to retain my anonymity after all. As for you, keep on taking on the silly arguments of the STACLU guys if that's your thang. I won't stop you. But don't forget to get out into the world, to experience things and change what you don't like rather than just complaining about it.

That's enough out of me. I've got things to do. So, to the ten or so of you who read this blog regularly, take care of yourselves, and keep fighting the good fight. Oh, and if you see Gribbit, give him a hug and a kiss for me... with lots of tongue.

Yours,

Maj. Mortimer Thessalonians Rational XXXIV

Ask a Republican

2006-08-16T21:11:00.000-04:00

I can't believe I didn't hear about this site sooner. I vaguely remember seeing a couple of his videos on iFilm, but until today I didn't know he had his own site. The content is funny enough, but I think there's something about him being from Ohio that puts it over the top.

(Thanks to my heroes Bob and David for the link.)

Colbert for Emperor

2006-08-09T21:52:00.000-04:00

So maybe they're not all fuckers

2006-08-02T16:35:00.000-04:00

Love is all around. That's all I have to say about these assholes raising holy hell over a rainbow flag.

(Thanks to Ed for bringing this to our attention.)

Update.

It's not like it's a Christian cross

2006-08-02T02:32:00.000-04:00

The Senate voted Tuesday to transfer land beneath the vaguely cross-shaped veterans memorial atop Mt. Soledad in San Diego to the federal government, effectively nullifying previous court rulings that declared the JesusStick an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. Natch, the cats at STACLU are pleased as sacramental punch over this. Also natch, the ACLU is all over this one, and chances are they'll win in the end. If this isn't a goddamn endorsement of religion, then I don't know what is. Ya think STACLU would enjoy a giant Flying Spaghetti Monster or maybe a statue of Ganesha (easily the coolest "actual" deity) on the lawn in front of, say, the Asthabula, Ohio, courthouse?

Ramen!

2006-08-01T23:17:00.000-04:00

I don't know how the Flying Spaghetti Monster managed to escape my attention until today, but I do know that this marks the second time this summer I've been tickled pink by a really brilliant work of satire.

A voice of reason amongst the religious right

2006-07-29T22:04:00.000-04:00

This guy might be my new hero.

Gaypocalypse Now

2006-07-27T16:48:00.000-04:00

Time for a little change of pace. I put together this little three-minute movie on gay marriage for your viewing pleasure. It comes complete with groundbreaking special effects and a rockin' soundtrack. I mostly made it because I can't get enough of Photoshop and Premiere, but I think it makes a point of some kind as well. Fight the power!

By that logic, Sen. Brownback is a vagina

2006-07-24T22:19:00.000-04:00

Hello, strangers. I apologize for my long absence. I'm a little rusty at the hinges. Let's start with a video:

Round about 2:45 in the Daily Show clip above, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-[where else?] Kansas) makes a fool of himself and Jon Stewart has a little fun with bad analogies.

As some of you may recall from my earlier, less delinquent days at DSTACLU, I enjoy poking holes in faulty analogies almost as much as I enjoy my Constitutional right to privacy. I see pundits and party hacks at both ends of the ideological continuum cooking up terrible, inapplicable analogies pretty much every day now and I can't overstate how painful it is to watch.

Since it's my first day back in a while, I'm going to start with one we can all relate to. The Recording Industry Association of America says copying music from friends or downloading it for free from the internets is stealing. When on the offensive, they might ask a group of young music-downloading whipper-snappers if they'd ever consider walking into a record store and taking a bunch of CDs without paying for them. The ethical whipper-snapper says, "Of course I'd never do that" and the RIAA nods sanctimoniously and replies, "See?"

But the smart whipper-snapper will have none of it. She might point out that stealing a CD from a record store means one fewer CD for that store to sell, a smaller profit margin, a laid-off hourly worker. It does not hurt the record labels because the retail establishment still has to pay the label for the stolen merchandise. In contrast, she might continue, making a copy of an existing purchased-or-not song file *might* hurt the record label, but only if the person downloading it were the sort of person who could or would ever be convinced that spending sixteen dollars on a CD was swell idea. "For example," WSer might say, "I would never buy a CD. Never, not once, not ever. If anti-piracy technology progressed to the point that in three weeks I'd downloaded my last Britney Spears song, I would simply stop the downloading. I would not go out and buy anything. The RIAA will never get a dime of mine. That being the case, my downloading is not bad for business. I'm not cutting into anyone's profits. I'm simply enjoying the freebies while the getting's good. Like those people who graze on samples of organic fruit salsa at the Whole Foods but would never think of coughing up thirty-five bucks for a jar of it."

Unfortunately, no matter how cutting the WSer's analogy analysis is, the law is still with the RIAA. As many noted intellectual property law scholars have said, that intellectual property law is a motherfucker. But you see where I'm going with this. Keep your eyes peeled, metaphor warriors, and report all faulty-analogy pushers directly to me. I'll talk some sense into them. You'll see.

"Outta my way! I'm Hitler!" -- Bart Simpson

2006-07-20T16:35:00.000-04:00

I sometimes get into "debates" with this cat called Kerwin Brown on Stop the ACLU. By "debates" I mean that he says the most ridiculous, outlandish things humanly possible and I pat him on the head for being so goddamn adorable. He makes guys like Jay, Gribbit, et al. look like Marxists, and that ain't easy. He once suggested that conservatives should support the Constitution Party rather than the GOP, because I guess the GOP just isn't conservative enough anymore. For the longest time, I was 99.998% certain that he was a parody, but I could never be sure... That is until today, when he dropped this on me:

Comment by kerwin_brown on July 20th, 2006 @ 2:08 pm
Mr. Rational you are supporting the destruction of the right to life and health. You can call it freedom but it is still tyranny especially when you say that your say is all that matters. You like Hitler also support genocide by changing the definition of human being. That just happens to violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which reads as follows.

Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

You are the enemy of the free people of the world and I hope you change.

This isn't the first time he's called me a tyrant, nor will it be the last. Among the reasons he's called me a tyrant are 1) I think gay sex should be legal (he doesn't, because anal sex places people at a higher risk for AIDS, and the government needs to protect people from themselves or something), 2) I think gay marriage should be legal (he doesn't, because it promotes gay sex, ruins families, whatever), and 3) I support a woman's right to legal and safe abortion procedures (he doesn't, because abortion is the same thing as taking a living child and running him/her through a wood chipper). Here's to Kerwin for creating such a wonderful persona for us all to enjoy.

Your Beloved Tyrant,

Morty

Bush to sick people: Fuck you

2006-07-19T19:37:00.000-04:00

Displaying a stunning amount of logical thought, President Bush today vetoed legislation that would have expanded embryonic stem cell research. In the name of saving little clumps of undifferentiated cells that may eventually turn into human beings, the Prez dashed the hopes of millions of Americans suffering from illnesses such as Parkinson's, ALS, and diabetes. In sum, microscopic ball of cells > sick and dying adult human. “Each of these human embryos is a unique human life with inherent dignity and matchless value ... These boys and girls are not spare parts,” Bush Said. I won't get into the whole is-it-a-human-being-or-not debate right now. Georgie, stem cell research has the potential to save countless lives - actual human lives, like people with organs and names and genders and families and more than eight cells. What you're basically saying is that a five-day-old blastocyst has more moral worth than a Lou Gehrig's patient.

If that's not bad enough, check out the accompanying photo in the NYT, which features a bunch of babies who started out as frozen embryos. Adorable aren't they? You know what they looked like five days after conception? They looked liked this: [ . ], only smaller. Just overflowing with inherent dignity and matchless value. Now contrast that with a crowd of crippled, wheelchair-bound 40-year-olds whose central nervous systems are falling apart and who have, at best, a few years to live. Now that is adorable. Thanks for saving all those little dots, George.

Update: The Onion chimes in on the issue.

Intelligent falling

2006-07-15T17:14:00.000-04:00

The scary thing is, I don't think this is too far from the truth.

Even more Onion

2006-07-13T14:53:00.000-04:00

Won't someone think of the FAMILIES?!

I don't have time for bitches

2006-07-10T22:08:00.000-04:00

I couldn't agree more.

A blast from the past

2006-07-05T11:01:00.000-04:00

More from The Onion: I Know What Is Best For Everyone.

Congratulations on TheOnion.com's 10th anniversary. Keep kicking the squares firmly in the teeth.

You mean I don't get unlimited power?

2006-06-29T14:47:00.000-04:00

Before I begin today, I have an announcement to make: Her Majesty, in her infinite wisdom, has seen fit to grant me the rank of Major, my second promotion in as many years. Let me just say that I am honored that the Crown has taken notice of my ongoing philanthropy and loyalty to the empire. Shalom, my sista. Now on with the show...

From NYT: The Supreme Court ruled 5-3 today that the Bush administration must put an end to military tribunals set up to try terrorist suspects at Guantánamo Bay. Chief Justice Roberts recused himself since he had ruled on the case as an appellate judge last year, but I'll bet you can guess who voted which way among the rest (Hint: The Godfather, the Quiet Man, and the New Guy were in the minority). The Court ruled that administration's kangaroo courts violated both American military law and the Geneva Conventions.

President Bush had this to say: "[T]he Hamdan decision was the way forward. ... The ruling won't cause killers to be put out on the streets. I'm not going to jeopardize the safety of the American people." Oh my stars! I think he actually gets it! He understands that the Court isn't telling the administration to empty Guantánamo Bay onto the streets of New York City; but rather, they're asking that the rule of law be upheld when these suspected terrorists are brought to trial.

To recap: No, you can't arbitrarily decide how to try suspected terrorists. Yes, you may continue to hold the suspects. No, please do not release the suspects from prison.

It sounds to me as though the Supreme Court made the correct decision. The rule of law is a cornerstone of any functional democratic society, and whether we're trying petty criminals or terrorists, certain rules must be followed. To do otherwise would undermine our core values. The big question that must now be answered is if these suspects won't be tried by military tribunals, then how will they be tried?

Already some in Congress are saying, well, use the military tribunals anyway! Senators Lindsey Graham and Jon Kyl issued a statement saying that they "intend to pursue legislation in the Senate granting the Executive Branch the authority to ensure that terrorists can be tried by competent military commissions. Working together, Congress and the administration can draft a fair, suitable, and constitutionally permissible tribunal statute."

This ruling has some people running around and smacking into each other like children hopped up on Pixie Stix. I won't go through all of their whiny and hyperbole-laden rants, but I'll just highlight a couple of my faves:

Jay at Stop the ACLU goes off thusly: "It is celebration time for the left, as Al Qaeda terrorists now have 'protections' via the Geneva Conventions thanks to the US Supreme Court." I hate terrorists as much as the next guy, but are they really so different from more traditional enemy combatants that we should strip them of their rights? A war is a war, and the same rules should apply across the board.

And a cat called AJStrata added this: "Well, if we can't try them without exposing more national security details to the enemy through (our? their?) the press we will just have to kill them. Bring on more virgins! Maybe we should just release them and hope they have learned their lessons? It may be less dangerous than exposing our defensive programs and efforts in court." A few words for ya, bub: sequor, sequi, secutus sum. Anyway, well done, sir. You managed to slip in a couple of opinions on issues that are somewhat related while calling for the wholesale execution of suspected terrorists, and I think that bit about releasing terrorists is one of them straw man thingies that Internet folk have grown so fond of using. Note to everyone reading: Please check yourself before posing silly arguments. How do you people sleep at night when you're pleading for executions and kinda-sorta lying about everything?

The Onion strikes again

2006-06-27T21:46:00.000-04:00

They win.

Update: Also this.

Oh, politics... You are so silly sometimes.

Gay, drunk, retarded - What's the difference?

2006-06-22T22:35:00.000-04:00

If you ask the Pentagon , they'll tell you, "Oh, nothin' much." Offering further proof that the U.S. government and, I don't know, 75% of the population hates gay people, a recently uncovered Pentagon document lists homosexuality as a mental disorder similar to mental retardation and alcoholism. This isn't some relic from the Vietnam era, either; it was re-certified in 2003. How lovely this is to hear. As if the military policy on homosexuality isn't demeaning enough (you know the policy - the one that says you're not allowed to be gay), now they're telling homosexuals that, in essence, they're on par with drunken retards.

What is it with people misunderstanding homosexuality so thoroughly? It's not very complicated. They won't just start fucking in the middle of a battle or on the courthouse lawn. They won't rape you or your children. They hate AIDS as much as you do. They want to get married, but for some reason you won't let them. They're just like you, except they have different tastes. You like Toby Keith; they like Celine Dion.

Here's what I'll ask you to do: Ask one of your gay friends or find a random gay person if you don't have any gay friends, and ask him or her what it's like to be gay. My guess is you'll get an explanation that goes something like this: "Oh, my life is pretty much the same as yours, except my apartment is cleaner." If they don't mention how the majority of the world's population thinks they're inferior to heterosexuals, it's only because they're too polite to bring it up.

Seriously, America. Knock it the fuck off; quit acting like it's 3,000 B.C.; and get over yourselves.

An open letter to Gribbit

2006-06-19T01:55:00.000-04:00

My Dearest Chum,

Would that I could leave my reply as a comment on your weblog, but as you well know, my compatriots and I abused said privilege to such an extent that you were forced to deny it forthwith. Please accept my profoundest, most heartfelt apologies for forcing you into such an unenviable position.

I also wish to extend my apologies in re my absence at the skirmish you scheduled for six o'clock post meridiem, the seventeenth of June, in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ two thousand and six at Public Square in the noble hamlet of Cleveland, Ohio. I beg your forgiveness and wish to offer you a full explanation for my absence. You see, my fidus Achates, for the following reasons I was unable to attend our soirée:

Since the age of eight I have been confined to a wheelchair, after my legs were so selfishly taken by a man operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.
Furthermore, I lost the use of my arms to the palsy at the age of thirteen.
Furthermore, I lost the remainder of my voluntary muscle functions to a nasty bout with the amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. I type this letter to you only with the aid of a NASA-designed computer that I control with concentrated bursts of air from my mouth through a specialized tube, which then converts the bursts to electrical signals.
The body of my beloved ten-year-old niece, Tabitha, is riddled with the cancer from brain to foot, and in the evening I sit at her bedside at St. Jude Children's Hospital and comfort her during her remaining weeks. A mere smile on that courageous girl's face is enough to light a million stars for a million years; that is how special she is.
My local pub offers two-for-one pitchers of ale on Saturday evenings between the hours of five o'clock and seven o'clock.
My sister Karen, Tabitha's grieving mother, finally succumbed to the agony of watching her firstborn suffer, and she hanged herself with a garden hose from the limb of a weeping willow. A lesser man would call that ironic.
The United States was competing against Italy in the World Cup football tournament. The match lasted until five o'clock, which rendered it impossible for me to travel to Cleveland in time for our scheduled meeting.
Our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, made it very clear how he feels about senseless violence. To engage in combat with you would run counter to all that I hold dear.
My lovely wife, Sharon, had her twenty-seventh abortion - some parts of me still work, if you catch my drift! - on Saturday evening, and as I had been for the first twenty-six, I was at her side for the procedure. As much as I would love to have children of my own, my physical condition prevents me from supporting them.
I had a terrible case of diarrhea.

Again, I hope you will forgive me my absence and understand that were it not for extenuating circumstances, I would have been in Cleveland at the appointed time. I certainly hope you enjoyed your steak.

Yours in Christ,

Capt. Mortimer T. Rational XXXIV

U.A.D.: M.A.D. for the modern generation

2006-06-19T00:15:00.000-04:00

I'm calling off my blogging hiatus on account of Ms. Maven Swift having to write a shitload of shit for work this week. In her absence, I have to keep the wheels turning, but I figure she owes us all about a dozen posts at this point, don't you think?

I come to you this evening with an important message, one I've discussed previously on this site: Calm the fuck down! While I was making my nightly rounds of respectable news websites, I found this, this, this, and this. We're now engaged in doomsdayism on two fronts: Iran and North Korea, but just because a couple of countries who don't like us have le bombe atomique and now the means to deliver it doesn't mean we're on the brink of World War Whatever (III, IV, V, or VI, depending on whom you ask). While mutually assured destruction was the best deterrent we had during the Cold War, now we have something even better: unilaterally assured destruction. Excuse me if I sound like a right-wing war hawk, but the fact that we have about 10,000 nuclear weapons and our enemies have something like four - take the under if you're betting - gives us a slight advantage. The powers that be in Iran and North Korea know full well that if they launch a nuclear weapon at any other nation in the world, their destruction is assured. Since so much of what is written on the Internet is misconstrued, and I don't want to be considered a warmonger, let me elaborate:

1) Nuclear weapons are 100% bad, and they should not exist.
2) At this point it's impractical and dangerous to completely disarm.
3) Nuclear weapons should only be used as a last resort - a f'real last resort, not a war in Iraq kind of last resort.
4) Once democracy has been spread throughout the world - but not by violent means, mind you - then we damn well better disarm across the board.

So everyone just needs to drink some beer, smoke some dope (if that's your thing), and chill out. Nukes aren't going to be raining from the sky, so let's trust that the people who need to take care of this are taking care of this and talk about more important things like the World Cup, the resurgence of the Detroit Tigers, or Phil Mickelson's monumental choke job in the U.S. Open.

I calls 'em as I sees 'em

2006-06-15T18:53:00.000-04:00

Last time I'll comment on this bullshit - I swear! I would leave a comment for Gribbit on his site, but I got my account there deleted because I signed up for an account there after he challenged me to sign up for an account there. Signing up constitutes grounds for removal, I guess.

Anyway, for a second time Mr. Gribbit has threatened me with physical harm. He writes:

However, should you want to settle this face to face, I’m game. Register for Blogging Man 2007, I’ll be there. We can take a walk out into the desert and have it out. And Corporal Irrational, you can have your broken jaw if you like. But I assume no responsibility for your injuries. I don’t fear you. I choose not to lower myself to your moronic level.

Huh? So the deal is you punch me in the face, but you can't be held responsible for punching me in the face? I don't think that's the way the law would look at it. You can't, like, say, "I'm gonna steal your car, but you can't hold me responsible for stealing your car," and then steal my car. I don't think an analogy is even necessary in this case, but I'm such a fan of analogies that I couldn't resist. Gribbs, you're welcome to hit me if you ever see me in person, but rest assured that I'll press charges. By the way, how is physical violence on a higher level than harmless snarkiness? The mysteries keep piling up.

Look, all I want is for Gribbit to settle down and enjoy life. No matter where you live, the weather this time of year is beautiful. Go for a walk outside, snap some pictures of a magnificent sunset, and take a break from all this blogging nonsense we get wrapped up in.

As for me, I'm going on hiatus starting tomorrow. No more blogging for me for a few weeks. Life's too short for this shit (anagrams, motherfuckers!).

Toodles,

Capt. Mortimer T. Rational XXXIV

Wait... Did you just...? Huh? That doesn't even make any sense!

2006-06-14T23:09:00.000-04:00

In a most ridiculously ridiculous display of ridiculocity, Mr. Gribbit has once again threatened me with harm of some kind. Back in March, Gribbit said he would break my jaw for calling him a liar after he lied, even though the proof that I called him a liar has since been deleted. Fast-forward to today, when Ed Brayton of Dispatches from the Culture Wars fame, one of the calmest and most rational bloggers you'll ever come across, confronted Gribbit (Part 2 here) about some less-than-true claims Gribbit made in a recent post. I won't go into the specifics of their exchange, but I suggest you read the whole thing on Ed's and Gribbit's sites (at least what hasn't been removed from Gribbit's site).

But how did I become involved? Well, I responded to a poll on Gribbit's site while I was reading his response to Ed. The question Gribbit poses is simple enough: "Has Gribbit Lied?" Since I've witnessed Gribbit lying, I chose "Yes." Big mistake! Or something... I'm now on Gribbit's shitlist along with 14 others who answered in the affirmative. I'm #10, just in case you want my IP address for some reason. Gribbit warns:

Morons voting that I've lied on my current poll. I never said that I wouldn't share this information. ... Notice... They didn't have the balls to register now did they? I'’ll get them.

Huh? This is so confusing! We just answered the question Gribbit asked, but I guess it was a clever trap designed to get the IP addresses of those who disagree with him. Why would he need our IP addresses, you ask? That's the big mystery. Why would he list them on his site? That's the other big mystery. Why would we register for his site? Mystery #3. What does "I'll get them" mean? One more mystery. Perhaps jaw-breaking is involved.

The only thing better than responding politely to dissent is to crush dissent swiftly and entirely and then threaten those on the periphery who are sort of but not really involved. Mission accomplished.

---

This last part is for Gribbit and no one else, so if you're not Gribbit, stop reading.

Gribbit, have you ever smiled? Laughed? Cried? Shown any feeling other than anger? The human experience involves a wide range of emotions, and each emotion adds its own unique flavor to life. Being angry all the time is like eating dry toast for breakfast, lunch, and dinner every single day for your entire life. It's unpleasant and unhealthy. I'm not asking you to be perpetually happy, because that's not healthy, either (Substitute "cotton candy" for "dry toast" in the above analogy). Let things come as they may, and react to them calmly. Some will make you happy; others will make you sad. Still others will make you angry. Take it all with a grain of salt, and don't forget to keep on smilin' through. Hang in there, buddy! Maybe instead of being a bulldog you could be a bulldog-golden retriever hybrid, with the strength and tenacity of the bulldog and the loving nature and silky coat of the retriever!

Tonight Show Tussle

2006-06-14T16:58:00.000-04:00

Ms. Maven sent me this link earlier today, and it definitely warranted a post. Rarely do the TV gods smile down upon us as brightly as they are today. [Disclaimer: I usually don't condone name-calling, but this is a rare exception.] Supreme Bitchface Ann Coulter and the legendary George Carlin will both be appearing on The Tonight Show tonight, and hopefully sparks will fly. Coulter earned her rep by spouting nothing but bullshit, and Carlin earned his by never tolerating an ounce of B.S. If all goes well, Ann will break down into tears while Carlin calmly puffs on a cigar and talks about cars with Jay.

The will of the people

2006-06-08T23:11:00.000-04:00

Hey, kids! It’s time for yet another thrill-packed round of THE ANALOGY GAME. Today’s starting point? Comment #16. Especially the part that goes, “…no homosexual is having his rights trampled on. They can marry just like heteros. Its [sic] just that they have to marry women, not men.”

Oh, snap! Let’s see if that statement can withstand the awesome power of the analogy.

Ready? Here goes:

Like many red-blooded patriots, I dislike affording special rights to whiny minority populations.

I’m looking at you, lifelong wheelchair users.

Why don’t you just walk? You have legs, and you’ve never injured them even once. You expect me to believe you couldn’t go for a stroll on those pristine legs of yours if you really wanted to? I was born at night, cousin, but not last night. I know a pair of legs when I see one, and unlike those fucking godless lunatics who study the biological sciences, I will not coddle or encourage you.

Walking is excellent for your health, and a sedentary lifestyle has been shown to increase one’s risk for diseases of all kinds. You are depriving yourself (and those who would emulate you) of the God-given right to good health and should therefore be discouraged and dismissed as often as possible.

Which is exactly why I am circulating this petition to ban all wheelchair ramps on public buildings and halt construction of elevators in buildings that only have stairs.

Hey, listen, I’m a good American and I believe in equality, so I hope once you stop whining about not having gotten your way, you’ll realize I did this for the greater good. In the meantime, feel free to enjoy activities on the upper levels of elevatorless buildings. Go to the opera and sit in the balcony. Please, I want you to enjoy all the same freedoms I do, because that’s what our Founding Fathers risked their lives for.

But you’re just going to have to learn to use the stairs like everyone else.

Reason prevails ...

2006-06-07T23:01:00.000-04:00

... by a wafer-thin margin.

Obviously, we here at DSTA are glad Congress thumbed its collective nose at the proposed marriage-defining amendment today, but I for one am not impressed. Yeah, yeah, I know, they would have needed two-thirds for it to go anywhere, but that's still too slight a majority for my liking. Call me a pessimist, but what the figure means to me is not that the American legislative branch is a shining beacon of tolerance and love that gave the official smackdown to homophobics everywhere, but that nearly half of these guys voted *for* the amendment. It means a significant portion of the population will continue to be marginalized and hated and feared in this country for years to come -- if not by everyone, at least by a good big chunk of people.

It's tempting to blame organized religion for this, but I won't do it. It doesn't take an organized religion to produce a hateful (or frightened or suspicious) person who claims friendship with a higher power.

Sometimes it just takes a mother and a father.

6/6/06, To Hell and Back

2006-06-07T03:38:00.000-04:00

"Woe to you, oh Earth and sea,
For the Devil sends the beast with wrath,
Because he knows the time is short.
Let him who hath understanding
Reckon the number of the beast,
For it is a human number.
Its number is six hundred and sixty-six."

--Iron Maiden (or maybe it's the Bible, depending on whom you ask)

Yesterday, June 6, 2006, was a day of great significance in our culture... or something. It was somewhere between a regular day and a holiday... or something. I don't know what it was, really. Actually, I think it was nothing, but no matter: Thousands of people turned up in the tiny, tiny hamlet of Hell, Michigan, to celebrate whatever it was we were celebrating. The city of Hell literally consists of three buildings: a liquor store, an ice cream shop, and a bar. Population: 72. That's it. So what drew 10,000 people to the middle of nowhere? Shit, I don't know. I was there to observe, and here's what I found.

This sign is on the side of Screams, the ice cream parlor. I think the little devil pictured is 75% retarded.

An interesting take on the such-and-such place is over there sign.

A view from the parking lot of the Dam Site Inn. "Damn Site" would be a much cooler name, but they went with "Dam Site," because, well, there's a dam right behind it.

About 50% of the attendees were bikers from various biker clubs/gangs. Another 25% were Goth teenagers, and the remaining 25% were regular old families from the suburbs and business types from Ann Arbor and Detroit.

Oh, and this guy. Of the three preachers I encountered in Hell, he was by far the nicest, but that's not saying much. He was a dick to be sure, but at least he didn't tell me I was going to the other Hell (the one with all the fire!).

Another Christian gentleman posed this question. I chose a combination of B and C.

The dorkiest bunch of atheists I've ever encountered. Still, wherever the Christian guys went, the atheists stood in front of them and unfurled their banner, which was quite amusing. The entire time I never heard a single one of them speak.

Moses was hangin' with the atheists! And he brought his video camera!

Can you find the Christians in this picture? (Hint: There are two of them.)

If you're going to rename Portage Creek, call it the River Styx, for chrissakes!

Two of the four horses of the Apocalypse. (Not pictured: the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.)

This poor unfortunate child was run over by a hearse. Oh well.

Speaking of hearses, the Hell, Michigan, Hearse Club was in town!

The ghost of Elvis made an appearance and performed AC/DC songs on an acoustic guitar. Surprisingly, he was pretty good.

I'm not sure what this guy was supposed to be. I think he might be a long lost member of GWAR.

There's a churchy kinda thing in Hell! It's about the size of a closet, and there's nothing inside. I heard they were going to host a few weddings there later in the day, but I didn't stick around for that.

Right after I took this picture, this little dude was sacrificed to Satan, and we drank of his blood. It was very refreshing, and it was free! Can you believe they wanted $8 for a bottle of baby's blood?

This gentleman and his assistants were by far the highlight of my day in Hell. He spewed the most magnificent venom at everyone in the crowd. He pointed out individuals who were drinking beer, smoking, or just standing there and told each and every one of them that they were going to burn in Hell for eternity. What a nice fellow. Shit, I'm a better Christian than this guy, and I'm not even a Christian. (I got a little video of this guy, and once I get around to firing up Premiere, I'll edit it and post it to YouTube.)

The man's wife, standing idly by holding a Bible and watching the couple's infant child (good luck in life, kid), looked bored with the whole thing, but she would later prove me wrong on that account.

An angry biker chick gets all up in his face, much to the delight of the crowd. It was impossible to hear what she was saying over Dickhead's bullhorn, but it was amusing nonetheless.

The fellow in the orange Tennessee hat, while likely drunk, provided some biting commentary without even opening his mouth. He started by standing about two feet in front of the bullhorn and feigning interest.

He stepped it up by spending several minutes walking in circles around the loudmouth, never once cracking a smile.

Finally Mrs. Dickhead took over, and her hatred was far more potent. Not only did she say we were all going to Hell, she also said that God hated us. Paraphrasing: "The Bible doesn't say anything about God loving you. If you live in sin, you hate God, and God hates you." That's not what I learned in church as a kid, but if you say so... (Note the young man in the hat at far left talking to Dickhead. As Dickhead told us later, the young man tried to reason with him by explaining that he was a Christian himself. Dickhead wasn't buying it, however. He said the man was a fake Christian and that he was going to Hell for drinking beer.)

Finally, this wacky old man summed up how everyone felt about the whole deal.

That's right!

2006-06-05T21:22:00.000-04:00

We're not suckling at the teat of Crooks and Liars or anything, but I just had to link to this. Listen carefully to the last three lines, which pretty much sum up how any rational individual should feel about sexuality and all that comes with it:

It's nobody's business, right?

That's right.

OK, thank you.

The louder they yell...

2006-06-05T12:35:00.000-04:00

...the more they lie.

I first spotted this on Crooks and Liars. Keith Olbermann deftly points out how Bill O'Reilly slanders American soldiers, lies, repeats the same lie, and lies again when he gets called on the lie. On top of that, FOX News later doctored a transcript of Bill's show to cover up his lie. And all of this just to rationalize what happened at Abu Ghraib and what allegedly happened in Haditha. To paraphrase Jon Stewart, I can't tell if that's the fairness or the balance.

FOX viewers, please listen: I'm not asking you to change your opinion on any political issue, but please, please stop watching Bill O'Reilly. The man is a menace. If you have to watch it, watch it like you would watch professional wrestling.

Y2Gay: a prophesy in one act by Maven Swift and Captain Rational

2006-06-03T22:26:00.000-04:00

Dramatis Personae:

ANTHONY ROMERO — president of the United States of America

KIRK CAMERON — evangelist, former child actor

FRED PHELPS — preacher, bigot

Year 2015. Pres. Romero seated at desk in Oval Office

ROMERO (into TV camera): My fellow Americans, it is with great pleasure that I announce the ratification of the Equal Right to Marriage Amendment of 2015, which guarantees the right to marry for every American who has reached the age of majority, regardless of race, creed, and yes, even sexual orientation. This event marks the end of a long road to equality on which myself and many of my fellow Americans have traveled for so many years. In order to celebrate this momentous occasion, I and several of my homosexual brethren will be wed tonight in a ceremony at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, presided over by Pope Ellen I. To the love of my life, Raoul Garcia-Marquez: We did it, baby! May the god or gods in which you believe continue to bless America, or, if you do not believe in a higher power, may you find the strength within yourself to constantly strive toward the betterment of mankind.

Year 2020. A bunker two miles below a church in Topeka, Kansas. Phelps sits at a Formica table beneath a bare light bulb

PHELPS (into phone): Kirk? Kirk, are you there?

VOICE (KIRK, through receiver): I’m here, Fred.

PHELPS: Oh, thank goodness you’re still alive. Listen, I’m really sorry you didn’t make it to the bunker in time, but we had to seal the doors. We were afraid the faggoty air would scorch our godly lungs. I know it’s been a while, but it’s taken this long to get the phones up and running. How’re you holding up out there?

KIRK: Um, I’m actually doing alright. Chelsea and I are taking the grandkids to see Alcatraz today. Chels says hello.

PHELPS: Grandkids?! How is that possible?

KIRK: Uh, they’re the children of my children. You know, grandchildren.

PHELPS: But what do you see? What’s happening on the surface?

KIRK: Well, I’m standing at the corner of a busy intersection in downtown San Francisco.

PHELPS: And?

KIRK: And… I see some cars. And some people are walking down the street. Oh, and there’s one of those trolleys!

PHELPS: What?

KIRK: And it looks like there’s a line at the sushi bar.

PHELPS: And what of the wrath of the Almighty?

KIRK: There are a couple of guys holding hands at a café, and one of ’em has a poodle with a pink ribbon on its head.

PHELPS: Oh, my heart! I knew this would happen! What’s become of the families?

KIRK: The families? Um, I see some at Baskin-Robbins. A couple more look like they just came from a Giants game. It’s a beautiful day out here.

PHELPS: Whole families? You mean like a mother, a father, and one or more children, the way God intended it?

KIRK: It looks that way, yes.

PHELPS: But it’s been five years!

KIRK: Five years? What do you mean?

PHELPS: Since the amendment! Since international faggotry cast its pall over this once glorious nation of ours!

KIRK: Ohh! That thing! Turns out that wasn’t such a big deal after all. I don’t think my own life has been affected in the least. In fact, I don’t think it has affected the life of anyone but homosexuals who are now legally allowed to wed.

PHELPS: Tell me, my son, how many people do you see in ungodly relationships with animals?

KIRK: Um, like, right out here on the boulevard?

PHELPS: Yes! Don’t spare my feelings, son! I need the truth!

KIRK: Well, no one, actually. Wait. Oh, never mind. That’s just a mounted policeman. In fact, no one is having sex at all out here — not even with other people.

PHELPS: Really?

KIRK: Yeah.

PHELPS: Well… uh… Surely the AIDS has gripped the nation at large! Does the blood of the fornicators run red in the streets? Has the Lord seen fit to spare the righteous few who were willing to stand up to the fags and the fag sympathizers?

KIRK: Actually, after President Romero increased funding for AIDS research by 500 percent a few years ago, scientists found a cure. The disease has been eradicated the world over. Don’t you get any news down there?

PHELPS: Kirk! You must listen to me! Come to my church! I’ll take the chance and open the airlocks for you and your family, and you can join us down here in the last holy space under God’s creation! Together we can establish an underground paradise that we will then populate with a new race of spiritual warriors, and we will lie in wait until the time when our Lord sees fit to return to this godforsaken planet, then we will emerge and crush the heathens with the sword of righteousness!

KIRK: Um, I think the ferry is about to leave, so we really need to get over to the docks. I’m glad to hear you’re doing OK, though. Give my best to the family.

PHELPS: Kirk! Kirk! Wait! Noooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Phelps’s head explodes

Exeunt

Marketing the Messiah

2006-06-02T21:49:00.000-04:00

Marketing has become a lot more sophisticated since the days when Jesus roamed the Holy Land. The Man Himself did it with a pair of sandals, a smock, and a soothing, fatherly tenor. If only modern-day Christians would stick to that method, we'd be a whole lot better off... or at least a lot less annoyed. Now they've got their mitts on everything: the Internet, the movies, video games, minor league sports pre-game festivities. It seems that nothing is off-limits to them. The good thing about all that crap is we can avoid it if we so choose. We can visit other sites, watch other movies, play other video games, and not go to Hicksville Hicks football games.

But if there's one bit of proselytizing that we can't avoid, it's those goddamn GodSpeaks billboards. You know the ones we're talking about -- the stark white-on-black one-liners straight from the lips of the almighty. They first appeared in 1998 and have been fixtures on U.S. highways and freeways ever since, and a whole new wave of billboards appeared just last year. There are now over 10,000 of them nationwide, and you can't drive 50 miles without seeing one. The days when we could take a nice drive along the interstate with some great tunes and a pack of smokes without having religion forced down our throats are over.

We've always dreamt of posting our own billboards 50 yards down the road, telling the people the real story. Since we lack the millions of dollars that that would require, we'll just have to post our reponses to the inane God-quotes right here.

Let's meet at my house Sunday before the game.

Maybe if you had free beer and Doritos and HDTV I would, but all you have to offer is bad music, preaching, and uncomfortable chairs.

C'mon over and bring the kids.

I'd sooner have my kids watch porn and smoke freebase with Ice T than take them to your place.

What part of "Thou shalt not..." didn't you understand?

What part of "Rhetorical questions don't win arguments..." didn't you understand?

We need to talk.

Sure! Gimme a call sometime. You should know my number. Just don't call before noon, because I like to sleep in.

Keep using my name in vain, I'll make rush hour longer.

That sounds like an idle parent threat. Goddamnit!

Loved the wedding, invite me to the marriage.

I don't recall inviting you to my wedding, and according to my state's constitution, I'm not allowed to marry you.

That "Love Thy Neighbor" thing... I meant that.

You mean like protesting at soldiers' funerals and blaming feminists and gays for terrorist attacks? If so, hot damn!

I love you... I love you... I love you.

I heard that one before, but then he left me for that chick in the Whitesnake video.

Will the road you're on get you to my place?

You tell me. I just saw a sign that said "SLOW CHILDREN AHEAD."

Follow me.

That's what the Pied Piper said to those kids, and look how that turned out.

Need directions?

Actually I printed one out on Google Maps, but thanks for the offer.

You think it's hot here?

No, why, did you want to put the AC on?

Tell the kids I love them.

Three words: John. Wayne. Gacy.

Need a marriage counselor? I'm available.

The lady down at the clinic only charges $25 an hour. Can you get under that?

Have you read my #1 best seller? (There will be a test.)

I didn't read the book, but the movie was pretty good. But what's with that mullet? Am I right?

Do you have any idea where you're going?

Jesus Christ, man! Don't you listen? I just told you I have a Google map!

Big Bang Theory, you've got to be kidding.

Is that why Stephen Hawking is in a wheelchair?

My way is the highway.

Tar and reflective paint. If that's not godly, I don't know what is.

I love you…Te amo…

Je ne parle pas d'anglais, d'espagnol, ou de chinois.

As my apprentice, you're never fired.

Except if I'm gay or I use birth control, right?

One nation under me.

You've really let yourself go, haven't you?

All I know is... everything.

I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 666...

If you must curse, use your own name!

Can't I just say "cuntrag" instead?

Life is short. Eternity isn't.

I could be wrong, but I think Nike has a trademark on that line.

It's a small world. I know... I made it.

What the fuck does that even mean?

The real Supreme Court meets up here.

You mean you have a tripartite system of government complete with checks to your executive power? Holy shit!

Feeling lost? My book is your map.

What page is Canada on? I wanna see the pointy tower!

Create your own Stop the ACLU post!

2006-05-22T21:36:00.000-04:00

If you have yet to visit this site’s inspiration, Stop the ACLU, I suggest you do so pronto. Their right-wing rants are sweet, sweet music. Stop the ACLU features a rare blend of anger, self-righteousness, stubbornness, lack of noun-verb number agreement, and generally poor writing. If you’d like a lesson in how not to engage in a political debate, then this is the site for you.

As an exercise in walking a mile in the other guy’s shoes, I thought it might be helpful to provide a step-by-step guide to creating your very own Stop the ACLU post! Let’s get to it!

Find a topic about which you would like to rant. Anything about church and state, homosexuals, or abortion will work, but if you’d like to change it up a bit, Muslim-bashing is workable. If there aren’t any Muslims to pick on, anyone with darker skin will do.

Find an article to link to. Since the mainstream media -- the "MSM" if you’re in the know -- are nothing but a bunch of evil pawns of the Communist Party, instead check out WorldNetDaily or Michelle Malkin. If you really want to go the unbiased route, FOX News will probably have something for you. The content of the article isn’t that important in the end.

Now it’s time to get pissed off. You can’t rant unless you’re angry, but not so angry as to offend old people who most likely agree with you. Look at pictures of aborted fetuses; watch a video of Cindy Sheehan at an anti-war protest; do whatever you have to to get the juices flowing.

Begin writing the post by making a sweeping indictment of liberals, and say something about how they’re attacking you and your values yet again. [Note: The phrase “yet again” is your new best friend. It paints you as the constant victim!]

Pick a random passage from the article you found and stick it in a block quote with an American flag background.

Make another sweeping indictment of liberals.

Another block quote with an American flag background.

[This is the most important step.] Whether or not the ACLU is involved with the case in question, implicate the ACLU. If you can’t find a quote from an actual ACLU representative, conjecture will work just fine. Assume you know exactly what the entirety of the ACLU would think about the issue, and then attribute that to the ACLU.

Talk about how this case demonstrates that the ACLU is ruining America. Use at least two of the following phrases: the myth of separation of church and state, godless Communists, the murder of unborn children, Roger Baldwin was a Communist, activist judges, legislating from the bench, national security, fighting terror, religious expression, our troops, gay agenda, indoctrination, anti-faith, Muslim extremists/Islamofascists, America’s number one religious censor, the ACLU defended NAMBLA.
Wrap it up by quoting Michelle Malkin.

In the event that you receive comments from detractors, follow these steps in formulating a response:

Come up with a pun on the commenter’s name – the stupider the better.

Ignore any facts that the commenter brought up.

Dismiss the commenter as an ignorant liberal.

Make fun of the commenter for having a college education.

(See step 8 above.)

(See step 9 above.)

Here’s your assignment: Using the guidelines above, create your own Stop the ACLU post, add it to the comments section or provide a link to it on another site, then take a shower. Whoever comes up with the best post wins a Bible, a copy of Of Pandas and People, and a Support our Troops bumper sticker.

A Vox upon you

2006-05-16T02:06:00.000-04:00

Every now and then a person so ridiculous comes along that I have no problem dismissing everything he says based on principle. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell top my list of such people, but tonight I'll add another one: WorldNetDaily columnist Vox Day (nee Theodore Beale).

I spotted this on C&L earlier tonight. I took one for the team and read the whole thing so you don't have to. Please don't read it. The only reason you should click on that link is to peep this man's reverse-Costanza hairstyle. I try so hard not to comment on otherwise meaningless things like fashion, but in this case I just can't let it slide.

I also can't let that name slide, either. Vox Day. Vox. Day. It's pseudo-Latin, I guess. "Vox" means "voice," of course, but "Day" is a little more difficult to translate, since there's no Y in the original Latin alphabet. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it simply means "day," and I'll even let him apply the genitive case to it. So he calls himself "Voice of the Day." A little silly, yes, but it's his name. However, there exists another possibility. Perhaps his pseudonym is a not-so-subtle allusion to the phrase "vox dei," which means "the voice of God." I certainly wouldn't put it past him, but I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

A little more information about Mr. Day is provided at the end of the column, informing the reader that Vox is, among other things, a member of Mensa, which instantly loses him points in my book. Members of Mensa have two things in common: 1) They have very high IQs, and 2) They like to tell people about their very high IQs. One typically joins Mensa by paying the Mensa organization to test him. If his IQ is deemed high enough, he may then join Mensa, pay Mensa an annual fee, and tell people that he is a member of Mensa. As far as worthwhile things go, this is right up there ceiling-watching. It's also fun to note that "mensa" means the following things in different languages: table (Latin), jerk (Latin-American Spanish slang), stupid (Spanish slang), canteen (Italian & German), and menstruation (Swedish, approximately). What I'm trying to say is that it takes a special kind of asshole to join Mensa, and an even more special asshole to append every one of his WND columns with a notice to his readers that he is, in fact, a genius. The strikes are piling up pretty quickly, Vox.

But let's get down to the column in question. I've never read this guy's stuff before, because I only visit WorldNetDaily maybe once a month by accident. WND is basically FOX News without the veil of fair-n-balancedness, which I suppose is better in some ways. WND's ridiculousness is readily apparent to the outsider, and Vox Day is certainly no exception.

This particular piece concerns itself with the issue du jour, immigration reform. Mr. Day is among those on the right who are so adamant about hermetically sealing the US-Mexico border and launching illegal immigrants back to Mexico with a giant catapult that they're turning on President Bush, dubbed "Dear Jorge" by Mr. Day. Of course they're overreacting, but if someone wants to turn on GWB, I won't stand in his way. (I might even surreptitiously encourage him.)

Mr. Day's major beef with the Prez is W's claim that rounding up and booting the 12,000,000 or so illegal immigrants in the US isn't feasible. Vox claims otherwise, arguing that a massive deportation wouldn't be hard at all. Perhaps if he would clarify his argument - with an analogy, perhaps.

Obliging, Mr. Day writes:

Not only will [a massive deportation] work, but one can easily estimate how long it would take. If it took the Germans less than four years to rid themselves of 6 million Jews, many of whom spoke German and were fully integrated into German society, it couldn't possibly take more than eight years to deport 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom don't speak English and are not integrated into American society.

Please give me a moment to pick my jaw up off the floor and stop blinking in disbelief before I continue.

Wow, Vox. The Holocaust, huh? You racked your Mensa mind for something to compare to the deportation of 12,000,000 people who snuck across an imaginary line in the dirt, and you came up with the Holocaust. Not just any old holocaust, but the Holocaust. The capital-H Holocaust. Should we try to find some of the Fuhrer's DNA, clone him, and see if he wants to help us out?

I won't even go on refuting the other nonsense in this column. I can't go on. All I'll say is that I think Vox Day needs some extensive analogy training before he should be allowed to write again. Maybe we need to institute some sort of analogy license that allows only registered members to use analogies when they write. Rule No. 1: Don't fucking compare anything to the Holocaust unless it involves 6,000,000 innocent people being slaughtered!

Alright, alright. I've gone on for too long. I hate calling people out like this and ripping them apart, but I felt the need in this case. I do hope you'll understand.

QWEST - A one-act , one-scene drama, with apologies to Billy Shakes

2006-05-12T21:36:00.000-04:00

Dramatis Personae
NSA
intelligence agency

BELLSOUTH
telecommunications company

AT&T
telecommunications company

VERIZON
telecommunications company

QWEST
telecommunications company

LAERTES
NSA's dead buddy's angry son

HORATIO
himself

Act I - Scene 1

Washington. A bunker 500 feet below a D Street Burger King.

NSA at the far end of a long table. Enter AT&T, BELLSOUTH, VERIZON, and QWEST

NSA
Hi, everyone. Thanks for joining me. Have a Danish. We'll cut right to the chase. We're going to need your records of every call ever placed by any person who has ever touched a telephone in the United States. Ever.

QWEST
What for?

NSA
Freedom, War on Terror, al-Qaeda, national security, yadda yadda yadda. Did I mention freedom?

BELLSOUTH
Sounds good! Here ya go!

VERIZON
Glad to help! Anything else you need? Credit card numbers? Incriminating photographs?

AT&T
Wait a minute. What about our customers' privacy?

[Beat]

NSA
Ha-ha-ha! You're too much, AT&T!

AT&T
I almost had you! You almost fell for it!

NSA
You old dog. I thought we were gonna have to break you up again! Ha-ha-ha!

AT&T
Ha-ha-ha! Of course you can have our records!

QWEST
So anyway, do you have a warrant?

NSA
A wha?

QWEST
A warrant. A judicial writ authorizing an officer to make a search, seizure, or arrest or to execute a judgment.

NSA
Ha-ha-ha! Don't you start now, you kidder.

QWEST
No, seriously. Do you have a warrant?

NSA
Of course not! Why would we need a warrant? What are you getting at?

QWEST
I just think that if you want us to violate our customers' trust and privacy you should do it legally and get a warrant.

AT&T
Settle down, Qwest. It's not like --

QWEST
Shut up, fatty.

NSA
Look, Qwest. We only want the numbers. We're not even going to look at them. We're just going to run 'em through the old IBM and see if any terrorists come up. It's a very small, limited program that involves only every American who has ever used a phone. What's the big deal? You don't support the terrorists, do you?

QWEST
Huh? Did you just --

Enter Laertes

LAERTES
Did someone say "terrorist?" My father was killed by a terrorist! Did you kill my father?

QWEST
What? No! All I said was --

NSA
I'd hate to see you lose lucrative government contracts. That would be an awful shame. Besides, the president said there's nothing to worry about. Are you calling the president a liar?

QWEST
No! Of course I'm not!

Enter Capt. Rational

CAPT. RATIONAL
I am.

NSA
Who let you in here?

CAPT. RATIONAL
Sorry.

Exit Capt. Rational

LAERTES
I demand retribution!

QWEST
Who the hell are you?

LAERTES
I represent angry conservatives who would sacrifice any civil liberty that the president asks us to so long as his request is preceded by the words "freedom," "terror," and "security."

NSA
Are you guys gonna fight or what?

Laertes charges Qwest. They fight. Qwest and Laertes are mortally wounded

LAERTES
Sorry, man. I didn't think it would come to this.

QWEST
I forgive you. Still, this is some serious bullshit.

Laertes dies. Enter Horatio

HORATIO
What the fuck just happened here?

QWEST
Well, that guy called me a terrorist, and then that other guy tried to kill me, but he died in the process, and now I'm about to die too. This is the price of freedom... or something like that.

HORATIO
This shit is really fucked up. I'd rather die than live here anymore. Got any poison?

QWEST
No, don't do that. Spread the word; make things better! You know: Be the voice of reason!

Qwest dies.

NSA
That's a real pity, isn't it?

HORATIO
I thought you were supposed to die, too.

NSA
You'd think so, but there's no stopping the NSA. Besides, this is a really bad parody and we don't need to follow the rules. You guys didn't even do the skull bit.

HORATIO
You're a real asshole, you know that? You'll get yours.

NSA
I doubt it.

Exeunt

Silly scientists... when will they learn

2006-05-09T01:03:00.000-04:00

Memo to the anti-gay/anti-gay rights crowd: I found some more scientific crap for you to ignore. Just throwing it out there.

No dildoes? I’ve got a better idea

2006-05-07T13:23:00.000-04:00

Who wakes up in the morning and says, “You know what would really make the world a better place? If we could stop people from having orgasms. Even married people who love having babies.” More importantly, who replies, “By God, I think you’re onto something!” How do initiatives like this gain momentum? How are they taking up precious time in state legislatures, where elected officials could instead be discussing how best to feed America’s hungry children? Are we going to outlaw hands next, just to make sure nobody is using them for prurient purposes? Lips?

When I hear about this stuff, most of me would like nothing better than to slap conservative fundamentalist America right across the face and demand that it get ahold of itself and maybe ask it to spend a little more time fighting for things Jesus would actually have cared about.

But that’s not very helpful, is it? That won’t win me any friends.

Instead, I’d like to invite everyone to play a little game with me. It’s called The Analogy Game, and the rules are very simple. I come up with an analogy and you try to poke holes in it. Tell me how it’s different from the situation at hand. If the only difference you come up with is, “Your religion is wrong while mine is correct,” you lose.

For generations, my family has taught that it is morally wrong to desecrate the human body. Everywhere I look, I see my country being taken over by people who abuse their bodies, and today I am here to tell you that I won’t stand for it anymore. I have identified the real enemy and I hope you will join me in the battle against it.

I am speaking, of course, of butter.

Oh, yes. Butter.

It clogs our nations arteries, spreads (heart) disease, and most importantly, has no redeeming nutritional value. To consume butter is to spit in the eye of the Lord. It is irresponsible and disrespectful, not to mention personally offensive to me.

Sure, butter tastes good, just like getting high on drugs feels good. If we lived our lives according to the pleasures of the flesh, where would be as a society? No one would invent anything or build any schools, let alone form democratic governments. No sir, we’d all be lying around in bathhouses, full of crystal meth and strawberry-flavored personal lubricant and socialist French pastries.

But butter is everywhere nowadays: on television, in restaurants, at the grocery store near the milk, even in my children’s schools. What do I tell my child when she comes home from dinner at a friend’s house and says, “Mommy, mommy, what was that big yellow block on the table at Susie’s house, and why was Susie’s family eating it?”

Not only is it wrong for me to eat butter, it’s wrong for you, too. I will not have my tax dollars going to support farm subsidies that in turn support the The Fat Agenda. And I don’t want you small farmers peddling your wares in my state, either, encouraging others to violate the sanctity of their God-given flesh.

Thank you for your support.

Death to the death penalty

2006-05-06T00:47:00.000-04:00

This is a pretty frightening story. Even though $2.25 million doesn't come close to making up for having to spend 18 years on death row as an innocent man, it's good to know that Mr. Washington is getting something for his suffering. One single case like this should be enough to turn every sane individual against the death penalty, but unfortunately it lives on in 38 states. At the very least let's stop executing mentally retarded people.

Calm the fuck down

2006-05-01T21:42:00.000-04:00

Sorry to use language that some of you might find offputting, but I needed to get your attention. We have a problem. Too many people are making too much out of too little, and they need to calm the fuck down. Minor incidents become huge stories, and small problems are made out to be life-or-death situations or grave threats to our country/freedom/way of life/whatever. Please, everyone - I implore you to settle down. Who's to blame for this freak-out? 9/11, cable news, and self-important bloggers. Overreacting following 9/11 was somewhat understandable, but we can't keep using that as an excuse. Cable news networks cram the same shit down our throats over and over, and when we tell them we're full, they cram some more down... and then a blowhard tells us what he thinks about all of it. Seriously, Greta, do you need to dedicate an hour a day to that white girl who disappeared in Aruba? And bloggers do the same thing as cable news networks, only more egregiously. My dear friend Mr. Gribbit from Stop the ACLU is a prime example. Check out any of his posts and enjoy the dead-serious tone, the name-calling, and the random threats. Honestly, who punctuates posts on Iran with pictures of mushroom clouds?

If you'd like to have a calm, rational discussion about something that really matters, I'm all ears, but if you're going to go all O'Reilly on me, please stay away.

Here are a few examples of things I really don't want to hear about anymore:

Illegal Immigrants - Let's look at this one logically. 1) Illegal immigrants will behave like perfect little angels, because they know if they get caught doing anything untoward, they'll be deported. 2) They really do perform the jobs that the rest of us don't want to do, and they do them well. Plus, smart economists say they're doing good for the nation as a whole. 3) Singing the national anthem in Spanish is not as heinous as eating a baby. Since when is honoring America in song - in any language - unpatriotic? 4) Are things really that good for illegal immigrants? | It's like this: The worst illegal immigrants are doing is putting a little stress on the public school system and evading taxes, but when they're making $2.00/hour and their children are getting a free education at our expense, I'm willing to look the other way. Yeah, the rule of law is great, but let's not go all Draco on 'em. Just go about your business and let them go about theirs.

Terri Schiavo - This story is a little old, but Terri's case is the best possible example of overreacting to something that is essentially meaningless. Here we had a woman who was mostly dead for 10 years and a family arguing over whether or not to finish the deal. I'm sure it was a grueling ordeal for the family, but why should the rest of us care? It should have been handled privately. We really didn't need FOX, CNN, and MSNBC giving up-to-the-minute Terri updates or bloggers to this day plastering "Remember Terri" banners on their sites or Jesse Jackson showing up in front of her hospice. You know that once Jesse Jackson becomes involved it's overkill.
Commies - I honestly thought we were well past the days when we viewed Communists as P.E.'s No. 1, but all my friends at Stop the ACLU have proven otherwise. Communists are no longer out to destroy America, and there are maybe 12 or 13 of them left in the country. They're as harmless as a cuddly kitten. If Communists attempt a violent overthrow of the government and actually pose a real threat and I'm proven wrong, I'll give every American citizen $37 billion.

The Duke Rape - Since so many cases of rape go unreported, it's difficult to get an accurate number of them that occur every year, but suffice it to say it's in the thousands - probably the hundreds of thousands. Whatever the number is, it's bigger than one. Why don't they all get the kind of coverage the Duke Rape has gotten? For one thing there aren't nearly enough minutes in a year. For another, not all rapes are committed by lacrosse players at prestigious East Coast universities. But since when do we care about lacrosse players at prestigious East Coast universities? This one has me stumped.

So instead of focusing on those non-issues, let's talk about these instead (but calmly and rationally, remember):

Darfur - We expect the world to stop spinning when 3,000 Americans are killed by terrorists, but when 400,000 Sudanese are slaughtered by their own government, we just kind of shrug. Should we always leave it up to George Clooney and Bono to bring important issues to our attention?

AIDS in Africa - See above/previous post.

Iraq - Sure it gets a lot of attention, but I don't think we're getting a clear picture of how poorly things are going there. Little help?

Osama bin Laden - Remember when this guy attacked America five years ago and then G.W. said he was personally gonna smoke him out of his hole and wring his neck on primetime television? Neither does he.

Aside from those discussions, there are a few more things you can do to help out: 1) Read The Onion - Remember their 9/11 coverage, which appeared under a "HOLY FUCKING SHIT - Attack On America" banner? Proof that nothing is sacred and we're all too uptight. 2) Watch The Daily Show and Colbert - News and editorials don't have to be dull and boring. 3) Spend some time outside - The weather's very nice this time of year.

Are you a good word or a bad word?

2006-04-29T00:48:00.000-04:00

A couple of posts back, my colleague astutely identified some of today’s most worthless debate jargon. While most of what the Captain said in that post was spot-on, I simply will not stand for his endorsement of the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice.”

Here’s why both of these terms need to go:

Just look at them and you’ll see why no one debates intelligently about abortion in this country. One side says if you disagree with it, you’re against life; they other says you’re against choice. Are you starting to see the problem here?

It’s true that these words have come to take on other meanings and that in context just about everyone knows that “pro-life” means “abortion is murder,” which of course means “ban abortions” just as well as they know that “pro-choice” means “a woman should have total control over her body,” which means “keep abortion legal and safe.”

How about now? Is it getting any clearer?

Notice that each camp talks about the other as its opponent, but they are not having an argument. The quality of the resulting “debate” is terrible and absurd. It’s sort of like if I said, “The death penalty should be abolished because killing for vengeance is wrong” and you said, “Hamburgers are delicious.” The first contention has nothing at all to do with the second. This is not a debate.

As long as we keep this stupid terminology around, we’ll never get a real debate going. Those who fight to keep abortion legal will never have to address the question of whether or not abortion is murder (sure, the assumption seems implicit, but how many “pro-choice” people have you ever heard state flatly that abortion is *not* murder?), and those who oppose legal abortions will never have to address the question of a woman’s right to decide when her uterus is open for business (again, the assumption seems to be that a woman does not have the right to decide this, but you will never ever ever *ever* hear any “pro-life” person — ever — come right out and say “A woman has no right to declare her uterus off-limits”).

We need people to say these things. We need to define the boundaries of discussion, to get at the roots of the issues each camp is concerned with. We need smart people to spend hours at a time arguing just about whether or not abortion is murder. Then we need them to put that aside and argue for several more hours about whether a woman’s right to determine the allocation of her bodily resources to others is inalienable.

The camps (i.e. the ban-its and the keep-it-legals) don’t want any part of this, however, because to have productive arguments, each one must acknowledge the cornerstone of the other’s argument. And if they do that, they’ll also have to come to terms with ethical, philosophical and practical shortcomings of their policy recommendations.

The politics of underpants

2006-04-23T23:38:00.000-04:00

A group calling itself the American Decency Association has an ongoing public denouncement campaign against Victoria’s Secret. Victoria’s Secret is a specialty clothing store specializing in women’s undergarments and sleep apparel (a.k.a lingerie).

From americandecency.org:

Victoria's Secret distributes a magazine which [sic] is essentially soft porn … Their sexualized advertisements in wall and window displays in malls across America are seen by millions of American children everyday.

First, the good news: at least the group is being civil about it. They’re launching letter-writing campaigns calling up their congressmen and generally respecting the democratic process, which I appreciate.

But soft porn? Victoria’s Secret? Really? That sounds a little harsh to me. I’ve seen plenty of VS ads, and not a single one of them contains a sex act or even a naked person. All I see are women (usually posing alone and never posing with men) in their bras and underpants and miscellaneous pajamas, nighties, bathing suits, etc. If you see pornography when you see a woman in a bra, I think that says more about you than it does about the bra-wearing woman or the photographer or the company that hired them to sell the company’s bras.

Think about that. What, exactly, does it say when a fully grown adult person thinks a woman in her underwear is pornography? Don’t try to tell me it says the adult is an especially moral being. I know lots of very moral religious people, and they’ve all been to the beach, but I’ve never heard one declare the bikini pornographic.

It’s something else. If anything, it feels like a perversion of religion to be so ashamed by the vessels that carry our souls.

Not to mention, excuse me, but this is a store catalogue we’re talking about, like the ones they give out at Wal-Mart and Sears. Victoria’s Secret sells underwear, so their models model the underwear. If I am a woman and I want to buy a dress or a pair of jeans, I look through catalogues that contain other women wearing the jeans and dresses. Why are bras so different? See if you can tell me without using the words “moral” or “values” or “decent” or any synonyms or derivatives thereof.

Words without thoughts never to heaven go

2006-04-20T01:39:00.000-04:00

My favorite thing about the Internet is that it gives everyone a voice. My least favorite thing about the Internet is that it gives everyone a voice. The means of communication is no longer exclusively in the hands of wealthy TV/movie producers and newspaper publishers, and the common man has gained exceptional power since the blog revolution kicked off. But as I learned from Spider-Man, with great power comes great responsibility. Unlike pro journalists, bloggers don’t have fact checkers or editors to deal with, so they’re left to police themselves. Rival bloggers and readers help somewhat by calling bullshit when they see it, but for the most part, it’s up to the blogger himself to be honest and respectful.

Unfortunately, political rhetoric in the blogosphere devolved into – or maybe it started out with – petty bickering, name-calling, and general shenanigans.

This is a plea to all the poli-bloggers out there to refine their rhetoric and return the sacred art of debate to its rightful place. Below please find a list of words and phrases that we must banish (or at least use in a more appropriate manner) from future political discourse if we are to achieve our goal of a tolerant, peaceful community. Please note that variations and synonyms of the words below that are used to similar effect are also to be outlawed.

conservative/liberal/right/left – These words are used too often to dismiss dissidents without paying any heed to their arguments, as in “You’re just a conservative. I don’t have to listen to anything you say.” They do nothing but polarize.

communist/socialist – Similar to the above item. Communism and socialism are rarely associated with their political/economic theories, but rather, they are associated with anti-Americanism and authoritarian governments. Please use caution when deploying these terms.

freedom – Unless this word is followed by a prepositional phrase, such as “of expression,” please do not use it. Many people will use “freedom” in an attempt to elicit an emotional response, as in “terrorists hate our freedom,” to which you should reply, “No they don’t. They hate us because we’re Christians and we support Israel.” Let’s not throw around sacred words so loosely.

our children – Sure, there are basic protections we need to have in place for children, but don't invoke their names in the middle of a politcal debate unless you're discussing one of said protections. We don't collectively share all of the world's children, so speak for your own, not everyone else's.

stupid name puns, e.g. dumb-o-crat/rethuglican/etc. – Such puns are not at all clever or humorous. All they will do is make you look hateful and detract from your argument.

fascist – Before you use this word, ask yourself these questions: 1) Is the person I’m about to call a fascist an evil dictator, or does he support an evil dictator? 2) Does the person I’m about to call a fascist espouse oppressive, authoritarian economic and social policies? If the answer to either question is no, do not call the person a fascist.

morals/family values – These words no longer mean anything. Morals and values are entirely relative. Unless you’re offering your personal notions of morality at the same time, don’t use these words.

patriotic/unpatriotic – Also very relative. Ask yourself, does your opponent really hate America, or does he simply disagree with you about what’s best for America? Unless you’re expressing your own love for America, which is entirely acceptable, don’t use these words.

nazi/hitler – Just don’t go there.

flip-flopper – Changing one’s mind is acceptable. No need for name-calling.

bushisms – Making fun of G.W. for his linguistic flubs was entertaining for the first few months of his administration, but now it’s just kind of pathetic. Find something better to do with your time.

islamofascist/judeofascist – See “fascist.” Same questions apply here. Can't you just call such people "terrorists" instead of making up strange hybrid words that are vaguely offensive?

religion – You don’t get to make laws based on your religion, so unless religion itself is the topic of discussion, leave it out.

war on terror(ism) – As Mr. David Cross explains, “The war on terrorism is a fucking joke. You cannot win a war on terrorism. It’s like having a war on jealousy … It’s an absurd notion.” In a war on an abstract concept, no one wins.

spelling/grammar – Only assholes point out spelling and grammar mistakes. If you do this during a debate, you automatically lose.

illegal – Calling illegal immigrants “illegals” is a great example of bending the English language in ways it shouldn’t be bent. Please don’t change parts of speech. Respect the words, and they'll respect you back.

clinton’s blow job/bush’s drugs and alcohol – Who gives a shit? Find something relevant to talk about.

baby killer – Yikes! Just say you believe that life begins at conception. Don't turn people off with such angry words.

gay agenda – If you’re using this phrase to describe the LGBT population’s quest for equal rights and tolerance, go ahead and use it. Otherwise, no.

gun nut – The Second Amendment’s biggest champions are also the most responsible gun owners. Don’t call them names.

weasel words – FOX News loves these! Using phrases like “some people say…” and “it’s been said that…” is a good way to distance yourself from some crazy assertion when your actual goal is to make that very assertion. Please don’t do this.

bush bashing – If you want to criticize Bush’s policies, fine, but do it calmly and rationally. We already have one Michael Moore, and we don’t need another one.

loony/wingnut – Calling people who disagree with you crazy will only make you look ignorant. Don’t do it.

anti-choice/pro-death/anti-life – We agreed on the terms pro-choice and pro-life decades ago. Stick to those.

indoctrination – Calling institutions – particularly colleges and universities – indoctrination centers is the same as saying that all students are ignorant morons who can’t think for themselves. College students are actually very smart and independent, and they’re quite capable of making their own decisions. Give them some credit. (Aside: I spent four years at what is considered one of the most liberal universities in the world, and I never once encountered a professor who used the classroom to preach. It doesn’t happen as often as David Horowitz would like you to think it does.) The whole idea of indoctrination speaks very poorly of the human race. We're not idiots.

cable news hosts – What hath Ted wrought? Cable news is all show and no substance. The hosts of the supposed debate shows are all full of shit, and their discussions amount to pissing contests. If you watch them for entertainment (kind of like you'd watch pro wrestling), fine, but don't put any stock into what they say. Again, they're all full of shit. Especially O’Reilly, Geraldo, and Matthews. But especially all the rest of them, too. Don’t listen to them, and for chrissakes please don’t quote them or try to pass off their rants as valid arguments.

That’s it for me! Please feel free to add to this list.

Communarchists

2006-04-07T18:37:00.000-04:00

I was browsing Stop the ACLU's online store today, and something a bit odd caught my eye. They have merchandise calling the ACLU a bunch of Commies, which isn't too surprising. But then at the same time, they have other merchandise calling the ACLU a bunch of anarchists. Say what? How can they be both at the same time? (Hint: They can't.)

But will you love me tomorrow?

2006-04-06T16:00:00.000-04:00

Calling all conservatives: this one's for you.

By now you've probably heard a lot about the "morning-after" pill, and I bet some of what you've heard is inaccurate.

If I understand correctly (and I'm sure you'll let me know if I don't), the reason many conservative people object to the morning-after pill is that they believe it causes abortion, which they believe is murder.

What I wanted to tell you, as discussed late last week on Slate, is that that may not be the case at all. I'll paraphrase a bit, so if you'd like to see the whole of what I've read, simply read the Slate article and follow the links from there.

Plan B is one-stop birth-control. When taken as directed, it will stop an egg from being released. If an egg has been released already, it will prevent fertilization/conception. It will also alter the composition of the uterine lining so that if an egg were already fertilized when the pill was taken, the egg would not be able to attach to to the lining. It does not, however, cause already implanted fertilized eggs to detach. In other words, Plan B does not affect pregnancies already in progress. I repeat, if a woman is pregnant already when she takes Plan B, nothing will happen.

Whether or not you believe that life begins at conception, it is inescapably true that pregnancy is impossible to detect until after a fertilized egg attaches to the uterine lining. The doctors can't tell you until then. They don't know. To quote Slate:

"It takes a week and a half for hormones to register in pregnancy tests. To verify fertilization before then, you'd have to open the woman up. And that would kill the embryo."

So let me put this another way: Someone you love is raped. You take her to the hospital as soon as you can -- maybe an hour or two after it happens. You sit with her, cry with her, wait while the doctors examine her and treat any injuries (internal and/or external) she suffered during the attack. She can take Plan B right now and go to sleep tonight knowing that even if she has contracted a terrible disease, even if her attacker is still out there somewhere, even if she will have to testify against him in a court room and possibly be subject to further abuse in the form of questions about her sex life, her social life, her alcohol consumption, or the length of her skirt (all of which terrors she may have to face), at the very least she will not become pregnant.

Or a physician could refuse to give it to her for "ethical" reasons that may or may not (as discussed above) hold any water. I don't know about you, but if a physician refused Plan B to someone I love under those circumstances, I would be very, very angry.

Just think about that. Then, if you still disagree with me when I say that Plan B should not only be legal, but that hospitals should be required to disperse it to patients who want it, please take a deep breath and calmly tell me why.

Spare some freedom?

2006-04-04T15:22:00.000-04:00

After the original reasons for the war in Iraq turned out to be a little less than true, the Bush administration regrouped and focused its rhetoric on two words: freedom and democracy. It was a somewhat effective attempt to add an air of nobility to the cause. In the end, I guess we wrested a nation of people from the control of a tyrannical dictator and introduced something like democracy.

It's all well and good that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power in Iraq, but all the freedom and democracy talk invites the question of why Iraq and not the countless other countries where F&D are limited or nonexistent?

Remember FDR's Four Freedoms. Quickly, they are freedom of expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. When ideas such as want and fear factor into the freedom equation, it's easy to see that evil dictators and corrupt governments aren't the only ones who abridge freedom. Poverty, hunger, disease, and strife can be just as oppressive as the cruelest of dictators.

Nowhere on Earth is freedom more lacking than the continent of Africa. Some of the atrocities that are happening in Africa right now make Saddam Hussein's Iraq look like Club Med. Africans are caught in the grips of famine, civil wars, genocide, and an AIDS epidemic. Here is a mere sampling of what is happening in Africa:

- In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, civil war claimed 4 million lives before a tenuous cease fire ended the bloodshed in 2002. It was the deadliest conflict since World War II.

- In Rwanda, over 900,000 Tutsis and sympathetic Hutus were killed by Hutu militants over 100 days in 1994.

- Twenty thousand children have been kidnapped and used as soldiers and sex slaves in the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda.

- Four hundred thousand have died in an ongoing genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan.

- An estimated 30 million Sub-Saharan Africans are living with HIV/AIDS, including 2 million children. Each day, about 6,500 people die from AIDS, a total of 2.4 million per year. As many as 18 million children have been orphaned by AIDS. In some countries up to 40% of the adult population has HIV/AIDS, compared to 0.3% in the United States.

It's definitely not a pretty picture. If we're so concerned about spreading freedom and democracy, why aren't we helping the people who need it the most?

Communists and the ACLU: An "exposé"

2006-03-31T17:34:00.000-05:00

The anti-ACLU blogging community is rather fond of attempting to discredit the ACLU by highlighting the organization's communist roots. For a couple of good examples, check out WorldNetDaily and an ongoing series (part two here) at Stop the ACLU. I won't dispute the facts or quotes they provide, because yes, the founders of the ACLU were Communists. What I will take umbrage at is the general tone that these pieces take and what they are implying by mentioning these facts (while omitting several others, I might add) in this context:

1. First there's the attempt to channel Upton Sinclair or Woodward and Bernstein. The authors of these anti-ACLU pieces act as if they're digging up previously unknown facts and bringing to light a major scandal, thus adding a shock value to their attacks. But the information they provide is hardly new, and it happens to be available to the Internet-using public at a certain free online encyclopedia.

2. Didn't this fervently anti-communist mentality die out after Joe McCarthy was neutered and disgraced? As much as many Americans would like to believe, Communists are not the be-all, end-all of evil. In fact, there are still many Americans who are Communists, and they even have their own party, the Communist Party of the United States of America. But they're not the shadowy underground organization they once were. They have a lovely website, located at cpusa.org, where you can read all about their political views and find contact information, including an e-mail address, a mailing address, and a phone number. They're not hiding anymore, so if you really want to find them, there you go. If you take the time to read what they have to say, you'll see that they're patriotic, democracy-loving, socially progressive peaceniks. They just happen to dislike capitalism. Communism should never be confused with totalitarianism, but unfortunately, ACLU haters make this mistake quite often. So go ahead and call the ACLU a bunch of Commies, and call me a Commie if you'd like (even though, FYI, I'm not a Communist). At worst you're calling us idealists.

3. Let's assume that Communists are purely evil and that the ACLU is nothing but a front for just a second. Biased histories of the ACLU will fail to mention that founder Roger Baldwin renounced communism in 1940, and subsequently the ACLU banned all Communists from its leadership. Personally I find this purge far more upsetting and offensive than the fact that the ACLU was founded by Communists in the first place. Fortunately, the organization realized that that policy ran counter to their own ideals, and they abandoned it in 1960. And calling Baldwin a Communist hardly tells his complete story. After directing the ACLU for 30 years, Baldwin went on to oversee civil rights work in post-war Japan, Germany, and Austria and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Jimmy Carter in 1981.

4. But here's the most important point, and it's simply an exercise in logic: the ACLU and communism - and by extension its adherents - are unrelated. The ACLU is concerned entirely with upholding constitutional protections and guarantees, while communism is an economic/political system. Shared views between the ACLU and Communists are coincidental and do not suggest that the two are intrinsically linked.

No gay marriage? What about gay zlarriage?

2006-03-28T10:07:00.000-05:00

My heart broke a little last November when 11 states passed bans on gay marriage. While these measures passed by overwhelming majorities in four Southern states, the most disconcerting aspect of the situation was that two solid-blue states, Oregon and Michigan, passed bans (57% and 59% of the vote, respectively). As much as I'd like to blame it all on the religious right, I can't do that. Many Democrats have voiced their opposition to gay marriage, and Bill Clinton himself signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, in 1996. And now many in Congress are pushing for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage.

Why is this happening? What about freedom, liberty, equality, and all those other buzzwords we throw around so casually? I've debated this issue with several people over the last few years, and I've never once heard a good reason why homosexuals should not be able to marry. I have heard several bad reasons, however, and I think opponents of gay marriage themselves understand that they don't have a legal leg to stand on, which is why they're going to the extreme of attempting to amend the Constitution.

Here's how a typical debate on the subject goes:

Rational Person: So, tell me why you're against gay marriage.
Gay Marriage Opponent: God created the institution of marriage as a holy union between one man and one woman.
RP: He did? How do you know that?
GMO: The Bible says so.
RP: You know you're not allowed to discriminate based on your religious beliefs, right?
GMO: Yeah, I guess so.
RP: You'll have to give me a better reason then.
GMO: Homosexuality is unnatural.
RP: No it's not, and even if it were, why shouldn't they be allowed to marry? What's it to you?
GMO: Gay marriage will destroy the notion of family, and humans will no longer procreate.
RP: Heterosexual marriage will still be allowed, and you can have all the children you want. Families will still exist.
GMO: Marriage is traditionally the union of one man and one woman. That's the way it's been for thousands of years. It's a sacred institution; we must protect its sanctity.
RP: Traditions end, often with very good reason. And is marriage really so sacred? Let me get this straight: Britney Spears can get wasted in Vegas and marry some guy she barely knows, but two people who love and cherish each other - but happen to be of the same sex - can't? And what do divorce rates tell us about the sanctity of marriage? If we allowed homosexuals to marry, I'd bet a lot of money that the divorce rate among homosexuals would be substantially lower than that of heterosexuals, because they would value the right dearly.
GMO: But marriage is simply defined as the union of one man and one woman!
RP: Who says? Webster's? Words only mean what we allow them to mean. We can print new dictionaries if that's what concerns you.
GMO: But then the government and businesses will have to extend the same rights that heterosexual couples enjoy to homosexual couples!
RP: Yep, that's the idea. Anything else?
GMO: Because I said so!

This argument unfolds like one between a precocious child and a lazy parent. When lazy parent makes an irrational and unjust decision, precocious child will naturally question it. The more rational precocious child is, the more irrational lazy parent becomes, until lazy parent erupts and yells, "Because I said so!" It's a sad sight to behold.

Look, maybe we can compromise. Heterosexuals can keep marriage, and homosexuals will get their own marriage-like institution called zlarriage. Zlarriage will be defined as the legal union of one man and one man or one woman and one woman. The government and businesses will recognize its legality and offer the same rights and benefits to zlarried homosexual couples that they offer to married heterosexual couples.

See? Separate but equal.

Speak up

2006-03-27T14:06:00.000-05:00

Please. Everyone. Can we stop assuming completely ridiculous things about one another based on our issue-specific political beliefs?

Liberals do this plenty ("Support charter schools? You hate poor children. Don't like affirmative action? You're a racist. Don't like abortion? You hate women"), but conservatives seem to be a little bit better at it. Conservatives gave us gems like "Don't like being spied on? You love terrorists" and "Don't think lying to the Grand Jury about a blow job is as serious a crime as lying to the American people about your motives for leading its army to war? You're obviously a communist."

Here is an excellent example.

In sum, the writer suggests that because San Franciscans greeted rallying out-of-towner evangelical Christian teenagers with resistance (a counter-rally, along with some official condemnations by various city officials), said SFans therefore believed that only non-religious liberals should have the right to free speech.

The really sad thing about the commentary on this story is that it appears on a site whose stated purpose (from the "About" section) is as follows:

"The American Thinker is devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans. Contributors are accomplished in fields beyond journalism, and animated to write for the general public out of concern for the complex and morally significant questions on the national agenda."

A more complex analysis of what was happening here might have noted that the counter-rally participants were simply excercising their own right to free speech. While I'm sure tensions were high and bile was spewed from both sides of the fence, here, I can find nothing in the SFGate article about anyone demanding that anyone else's First-Amendment right be revoked.

The counter-rally is as central to American free speech as the rally itself. If a group of people came to my town and declared "cultural war" on me, I would not cheer them on. Would you?

Why we’re here

2006-03-24T20:34:00.000-05:00

If we believed most of the information we got from the news media, Capt. Rational and I would be scared shitless right now. We would be terrified that we were the only two reasonable people left on earth, that everyone was either a godless commie liberal slut or a right-wing hatemongering religious zealot, that the lunatics had at last taken over the asylum. We’d see the world in red and blue and there would be no hope for us.

Fortunately, the 1980s prepared us for this. We know the only real way to make sense of the flat, eye-straining red and blue outlines — the only way to see them in three dimensions — is to don a pair of special glasses with one blue lens and one red one and keep both eyes open.

We don’t buy the red-state/blue-state dichotomy. We were paying attention as the numbers came in during the 2004 presidential election, and we noticed that in most states, the margin of blueness/redness was pretty slim. That means most of America is a healthy shade of purple, a good strong blend of people and ideas. And we’re not sure, but if we had to guess, we’d say most of these people are a lot more reasonable than our pundits, elected officials, and cookie-cutter talking heads.

Unfortunately, those latter three types are in charge of the mainstream media, so it falls to the rest of us to have the reasoned debates they won’t. It’s up to us to help each other understand where we are coming from, what we believe, and why we believe it. If there is common ground — and God help us if there isn’t — it’s our responsibility as citizens to find it.

We will disagree — sometimes passionately — about policy and morality and everything else under the sun, but we will do it civilly and it will be good for us.

Got gay?

2006-03-24T19:18:00.000-05:00

Parody of the ridiculous has long been an effective method of making the ridiculous look even more ridiculous. If the parody itself does not accomplish this, the parodied party's indignant - and often preposterous - reaction usually does. Rather than having a chuckle at their own expense and letting the parody roll off their backs, targets of parody too often resort to litigation.

Case in point: the parody shown in the picture, which was created by Santa Rosa, Calif., blogger Justin Watt. Last September, after spotting an anti-gay billboard erected by Exodus International, a Christian nonprofit whose stated mission is to "... provide support for individuals who want to recover from homosexuality," Watt created his amusing and poignant parody and posted it on his blog.

Fast-forward six months to March 2, 2006, when Watt received a cease-and-desist letter from lawyers representing Exodus, who claimed that Watt's use of their image violated copyright law. ACLU lawyers were soon on the case and sent a detailed response to Exodus's lawyers, explaining that Mr. Watt's parody is protected by the First Amendment, citing, among other laws, section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, which regards fair use of copyrighted material. Fortunately, the issue will never reach court, since earlier today, Exodus unceremoniously dropped its case against Watt.

Even though the issue in this case was one of free speech and not gay rights, this episode highlights a dangerous attitude that is prevalent in our society even in the year 2006. In spite of all the evidence to the contrary, too many Americans believe that homosexuality is a disease, a choice, or a perversion. What's worse is that this belief is put into practice, and rights enjoyed by the heterosexual majority are denied to LGBT citizens. As far as we've come in the area of civil rights, our government still blatantly discriminates against a significant portion of the population based on an archaic notion of normality. For more on the ongoing fight to protect gay rights, please visit the ACLU website.

The truthiness about sex

2006-03-23T19:43:00.000-05:00

Stop the ACLU posted an item today about a recent ACLU press release regarding the sex education curriculum in Rhode Island's public schools. The ACLU has argued - and the Rhode Island Department of Education has agreed - that the federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage curriculum failed to live up to Rhode Island's anti-discrimination statutes and comprehensive sex education laws.

It was a straightforward, no-nonsense press release. But our buddy Gribbit at Stop the ACLU proceeded to completely misread it and post his distorted interpretation under the headline "Abstinence Is Harmful? News To Us." He took a portion of the ACLU headline, dismantled an adjective (”Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage”), eliminated the subject (”Curriculum”), then made a component of the adjective (”Abstinence”) the new subject.

Gribbit also included a little lecture on reproductive health, which is (mostly) accurate and inarguable, save for a bizarre and misplaced attack (?) on homosexuals. We don’t need to be reminded that abstinence is the best method for avoiding unwanted pregnancies and STDs. That’s not the issue here. The issue is that teaching ONLY abstinence is dangerous in that it doesn’t teach teens that there are methods to safely engage in sex. Asking teens not to have sex is like asking kittens not to be cute. Not gonna happen. And contrary to what Gribbit claims, having sex is not akin to shoplifting. Now do I believe that teaching abstinence should be part of sex education? Of course! And I bet the ACLU does, too. However, it should be part of a comprehensive curriculum that covers the many aspects of sex.

Also included in Gribbit's post are some inaccurate figures regarding the effectiveness of hormonal birth control. According to the FDA, hormonal birth control has a failure rate of 1-2%, not 8%. In practice, this number goes up to 5% as a result of missed does, etc., but this is hardly the drug’s fault. Additionally, the FDA says that, administered correctly, the pill can be up to 99.9% effective.

Of course condoms, the pill, and other common methods of contraception aren't infallible, but they’re a hell of a lot more effective if used properly. It only makes sense, then, to teach teens how to use them properly.

As for Gribbit's claims regarding abortion safety, the data shows otherwise again. Abortion as performed by a licensed physician is among the safest surgical procedures there are. According to a CDC fact sheet, only 1% of abortions result in infection (common to all surgeries), and 0.6 deaths occur per 100,000 abortions, which happens to be lower than the maternal fatality rate associated with live birth (9.8 per 100,000). Regarding the purported abortion-breast cancer link, the National Cancer Institute issued a report written by a group of breast cancer experts that says there is no link between abortion and breast cancer.

The debate over at what point life begins will rage on forever, but, as the Supreme Court said in Roe v. Wade, settling that argument is beside the point. In the majority opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote, "the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense" and therefore did not enjoy the status or rights of such persons. The Court also held that criminalizing abortion "abridged [a woman's] right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments."