The original release
In a move that should surprise nobody, the California Supreme Court pulled what can only go down in history as "the ultimate bitch move". The court managed to fail both supporters of proposition 8 and rational, logical people who don't feed on hate. The court decided to uphold Prop. 8 (basically saying that a good 52% of the California population are smart enough to make laws) and allow the gay marriages that took place before the passing of Prop. 8 to stand (basically saying, "it's cool to be gay, as long as you act swiftly").
But saying, "gay marriage isn't okay, but it is," is really only the beginning of this cop out. In the offical release regarding the decision the court noted , "that the scope of Proposition 8 is narrow, limited solely to restricting the use of the term “marriage” to opposite-sex couples, while not otherwise affecting the fundamental constitutional rights of same-sex couples described in its earlier opinion in In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757." Hey Brown, listen, this is just education we're talking about. It's one aspect of your life, it's not the whole thing. Besides you got this whole separate, but equal school over here that you can go to.
Apparently, the California Supreme Court feels that it's okay to discriminate against a minority group, as long as a majority of the population feels the same way. However, both sides swear this is not the end of their war and promise to meet their ultimate goal of either eliminating segregation or "killing all them thar queers". In the meantime, thank god that we have a bevy of 50/50 successful straight marriages to fall back on.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
If I get shot in a park, I'm blaming this fucker.
Bit of the original story
When was the last time you've been in a national park and thought, "man, my credit card rate is insane AND I wish I could carry a loaded Desert Eagle in my waistband..right now!" Unless you bank at that backwater shit shed featured in Michael Moore's Bowling For Columbine, probably never. However, that's exactly what Senator Tom Coburn must have been thinking when he championed tying a bill that allows the carrying of a loaded and concealed weapon inside of U.S. National parks to the amazingly popular credit card reform measure.
Just so you're clear, one piece panders to gun lobbyist (one of the oldest and scariest lobbies) and one panders to many American's who have had their rates unfairly raised by credit card companies. One, "forbids rate increases on existing balances unless consumers are at least 60 days late paying their bill or the initial rate was a promotional rate that has expired, and requires 45 days' notice to raise rates". The other, allows you to take your Glock into Jellystone incase anyone fucks with your pick'a'nic basket.
While they were voted on separately in the senate both were bound together when they were put before President Obama, who has already said he'll sign the credit card bill with the attached gun measure. While this is a huge disappointment for a candidate who ran on gun reform, it's also an understandable political move. If he refused to sign the bill because of the gun provision, Obama would be stalling an action that many Americans are looking for. Even people who support gun control would probably press the issue, simply because the credit card bill is so central right now.
Of course, all this leaves those of us with good credit and a fear of getting shot by a hillbilly river rafter, out in the cold.
When was the last time you've been in a national park and thought, "man, my credit card rate is insane AND I wish I could carry a loaded Desert Eagle in my waistband..right now!" Unless you bank at that backwater shit shed featured in Michael Moore's Bowling For Columbine, probably never. However, that's exactly what Senator Tom Coburn must have been thinking when he championed tying a bill that allows the carrying of a loaded and concealed weapon inside of U.S. National parks to the amazingly popular credit card reform measure.
Just so you're clear, one piece panders to gun lobbyist (one of the oldest and scariest lobbies) and one panders to many American's who have had their rates unfairly raised by credit card companies. One, "forbids rate increases on existing balances unless consumers are at least 60 days late paying their bill or the initial rate was a promotional rate that has expired, and requires 45 days' notice to raise rates". The other, allows you to take your Glock into Jellystone incase anyone fucks with your pick'a'nic basket.
While they were voted on separately in the senate both were bound together when they were put before President Obama, who has already said he'll sign the credit card bill with the attached gun measure. While this is a huge disappointment for a candidate who ran on gun reform, it's also an understandable political move. If he refused to sign the bill because of the gun provision, Obama would be stalling an action that many Americans are looking for. Even people who support gun control would probably press the issue, simply because the credit card bill is so central right now.
Of course, all this leaves those of us with good credit and a fear of getting shot by a hillbilly river rafter, out in the cold.
At least there wasn't any swearing.
The original story
Apparently, it's a great time to live in the US. In a time of great economic prosperity, a surplus of funding for our public schools and health care so comprehensive every single citizen of the United States is covered for life, the Republican part has little more to pass petty, partisan resolutions regarding their opposing parties moniker. There is so little to actually do, that it seems like a good idea to actively peruse a resolution changing the name of the Democratic Party to the "Democrat Socialist Party".
That's right people. In a party that has stalled out on momentum and is currently residing on the sloth and short sightedness of it's far right base, it seems like a good idea to waste valuable time and energy trying to implement a scare tacit on the dominant party's name. Imagine the outrage that would have spurred up if even 4 years ago it was suggest we change the name to "The Republican Fascist Party" (even though imprisoning people for undetermined lengths for undefined crimes, warrant less wiretapping and baseless wars bordering on genocide are more in keeping with fascism than feeding and clothing your population are with socialism). Is this the "change" Michael Steele dared bolster and gloat about? Is this the Republican Party that's going to redefine politics and motivate America?
We're in the grips of one of the worst economic recessions in history with unemployment over 11% in some areas and all you can do is get together and go, "Those Democrats are stinky ol' socialists. We should change their name to the Democratic Socialist Party"? While you're at it, make sure to push Nancy Pelosi off the swings and throw James Clyburn's sandwich in the tanbark.
P.S. Oh, in the same meeting they decided to honor someone who helped start Reganomics and help spread the broad deregulation that got us in this economic shit sandwich. Way to go!
Apparently, it's a great time to live in the US. In a time of great economic prosperity, a surplus of funding for our public schools and health care so comprehensive every single citizen of the United States is covered for life, the Republican part has little more to pass petty, partisan resolutions regarding their opposing parties moniker. There is so little to actually do, that it seems like a good idea to actively peruse a resolution changing the name of the Democratic Party to the "Democrat Socialist Party".
That's right people. In a party that has stalled out on momentum and is currently residing on the sloth and short sightedness of it's far right base, it seems like a good idea to waste valuable time and energy trying to implement a scare tacit on the dominant party's name. Imagine the outrage that would have spurred up if even 4 years ago it was suggest we change the name to "The Republican Fascist Party" (even though imprisoning people for undetermined lengths for undefined crimes, warrant less wiretapping and baseless wars bordering on genocide are more in keeping with fascism than feeding and clothing your population are with socialism). Is this the "change" Michael Steele dared bolster and gloat about? Is this the Republican Party that's going to redefine politics and motivate America?
We're in the grips of one of the worst economic recessions in history with unemployment over 11% in some areas and all you can do is get together and go, "Those Democrats are stinky ol' socialists. We should change their name to the Democratic Socialist Party"? While you're at it, make sure to push Nancy Pelosi off the swings and throw James Clyburn's sandwich in the tanbark.
P.S. Oh, in the same meeting they decided to honor someone who helped start Reganomics and help spread the broad deregulation that got us in this economic shit sandwich. Way to go!
Monday, May 18, 2009
Obama's sweeping abortion reform
After facing many hostile pro-lifer's at his recent commencement speech for Notre Dame, President Obama has seen the light. In what Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is calling, "the most sweeping reform since Roe v. Wade", President Obama has devised a plan this is sure to "meet the moral demands of all those who respect the rights of America's unborn". Gibbs explained, "After seeing the passion and compassion demonstrated by the protesters, the President realized how much this issue meant to them and thus, decided to make a law that would meet all of their demands, in a way that would directly impact their constituency".
That's why the President is swiftly passing an executive order making it illegal for white males to obtain abortions. "We believe that if they feel so strongly about this issue, the government has no place to stand in their way, " Gibbs explained, "and hopefully this will put all those elderly, white men at ease".
However, the White House isn't foolhardy enough to forget about female pro-lifers, such as right wing support Ann Coulter. This has lead to the push of a future initiative that would also ban abortions for all women who are well past the age of menopause. Gibbs touched on the matter noting, "Hey, if a woman who physically can't get pregnant doesn't want to have the option of an abortion, why should we force it down' her throat?"
There is currently no word yet on plans to limit abortions for people who are unable to get pregnant due to sex changes or for people who are too unattractive to conceive.
That's why the President is swiftly passing an executive order making it illegal for white males to obtain abortions. "We believe that if they feel so strongly about this issue, the government has no place to stand in their way, " Gibbs explained, "and hopefully this will put all those elderly, white men at ease".
However, the White House isn't foolhardy enough to forget about female pro-lifers, such as right wing support Ann Coulter. This has lead to the push of a future initiative that would also ban abortions for all women who are well past the age of menopause. Gibbs touched on the matter noting, "Hey, if a woman who physically can't get pregnant doesn't want to have the option of an abortion, why should we force it down' her throat?"
There is currently no word yet on plans to limit abortions for people who are unable to get pregnant due to sex changes or for people who are too unattractive to conceive.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Well as long as it's really important...
So, unless you live in a world devoid of pop-culture (in which case I envy you) you've heard about Miss California, Carrie Prejean. During the Miss USA or Miss America or Miss Future Bang Box for Donald Trump (I don't recall which) Prejean was asked by judge, and tabloid blogger, Perez Hilton what she thought about gay marriage. This inspired a 10 minute long series of long winded explanations that basically stated, "I'm not for it". It's a fair question. This woman is supposed to be "Miss America" and represent our country and a lot of folks in our country are gay and probably don't want to be represented by someone who thinks they're less than human.
Understandably, she didn't win (who the fuck do you think watches beatuy pagents? Single dudes hanging out in bars? No, it's old bitter women who just pick appart the contestants and old queens, who do the same thing). That's the story, right? NO! It was just getting started. Christains claim she was chastized for having moral views, and the media (some say the liberal media) seemed to go on an all out witch hunt for this woman. Pictures of her in questionable outfits were posted, her family history revealed and Republican masturbator fodder Ann Coulter posted this letter, which in more than one place comes off as a little...well, gay.
In all of this people seem to be forgetting that this is over a god damn beauty pageant entry. She isn't deciding public policy, she's not going to teach your children and now she's not even going to represent America as the Donald Trump approved beauty queen. Everyone needs to get over this. To her supporters, she was going for a title that basically only means anything to dead inside middle America housewives, which is why she got as far as she did with the "no gay marriage" thing as she did (it's also why I'd imagine a good amount of politicians feel the same way, a small group of stupid but dedicated voters goes a long way, look at the NRA). To her critics, she didn't win. And even if she did, would we be any worse for the wear? Leave this girl alone, criticizing her only draws a more dedicated base of nuts, remember the unknown Alaskan Governor of '08?
Understandably, she didn't win (who the fuck do you think watches beatuy pagents? Single dudes hanging out in bars? No, it's old bitter women who just pick appart the contestants and old queens, who do the same thing). That's the story, right? NO! It was just getting started. Christains claim she was chastized for having moral views, and the media (some say the liberal media) seemed to go on an all out witch hunt for this woman. Pictures of her in questionable outfits were posted, her family history revealed and Republican masturbator fodder Ann Coulter posted this letter, which in more than one place comes off as a little...well, gay.
In all of this people seem to be forgetting that this is over a god damn beauty pageant entry. She isn't deciding public policy, she's not going to teach your children and now she's not even going to represent America as the Donald Trump approved beauty queen. Everyone needs to get over this. To her supporters, she was going for a title that basically only means anything to dead inside middle America housewives, which is why she got as far as she did with the "no gay marriage" thing as she did (it's also why I'd imagine a good amount of politicians feel the same way, a small group of stupid but dedicated voters goes a long way, look at the NRA). To her critics, she didn't win. And even if she did, would we be any worse for the wear? Leave this girl alone, criticizing her only draws a more dedicated base of nuts, remember the unknown Alaskan Governor of '08?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)