Tuesday, March 30, 2010
"Gay Jesus Musical Canceled in Texas"
Upon reading this article, my first thought was: What made these students think this was EVER going to happen? It's Texas. In Texas, it's OK to "ride a bull," but a sin for 2 people of the same gender to get it on. Ergo, you may not pretend to be gay, especially if you are also pretending to be Jesus.
Why do homophobes have to ruin art? Is it not enough that no one is forcing them to engage in gay activities (i.e. dancing, interior decorating, etc.). Can't they just live and let live? They don't have to see the play. Or, they can see it, and offer their criticism of it. But threats? Over a college play? Are they that bored?
(When I was in college, the students performed a play called "Vampire Lesbians of Sodom." I guess since Jesus wasn't in that, it was OK.)
Finally, why not just do the play anyway. If it is in fact about issues dealt with by gay Christians, that seems really interesting and thought-provoking.
I've heard some say that art isn't art if it doesn't offend someone. I don't know if that's true, but the fact that it does offend some people does not render the play "not art." What's more, this play seems like it had something pertinent and timely to say.
Not having seen the play or the script, I don't want to assume too much about its quality. But the problem with the sort of bullying, threatening behaviors we see on display in Texas is that they censor by fear. And now, people may not get the see the play at all. So how will we know?
What many modern Christians forget is that Jesus was not a peaceful, "go with the flow" guy. On the contrary. He pissed people off everywhere he went. Why? Because he challenged the status quo. Because he stood up for what he believed in, even when it was not popular. Because he was different, and he was not ashamed. He associated with tax collectors, lepers, women of ill repute, and generally, the outcasts, those on the fringe of society at the time.
I don't know if he was gay. That doesn't matter. My point is this: if Jesus lived today, in this world, at this time, I think he'd be in the theater watching that play, not in the streets protesting with his so-called followers.
Monday, March 29, 2010
There is currently a movement to replace Ulysses S. Grant's image on the $50 with Ronald Reagan. The GOP trots out the Gipper every time it wants to drum up nostalgic support for its neo-conservative agenda. Ironically, all we hear from these so-called fiscal conservatives today is how our future generations are going to be crushed by our national debt. And it is ironic.
When Ronny ran the White House, he ran the national debt up from $908 billion up to $2.6 trillion, an increase of 186%. This increase in debt-to-GDP ratio surpassed FDR's new deal and WWII. Where do these Reaganites get off criticizing ANYONE for deficits and debt?
And where were these debt hawks when W and the GOP started 2 wars with no money to pay for them. No effort was even made to pay for them. They just spent, spent, spent, with no regard or objection from any part of the party (except Ron Paul).
The last time our nation saw sustained economic growth paired with reduction in national debt was the Clinton Administration. Yup. The philandering bumpkin and the so-called "tax-and-spend liberals" know more about economics that Reagan, W, Cheney, basically the entire GOP. So please just shut the fuck up. You have no credibility when it comes to this issue.
Trying to canonize Reagan as the patron saint of conservatism would is like trying to canonize Dick Cheney as the patron saint of charm, or Sarah Palin as the patron saint of moderately intelligent. It just doesn't pass the straight face test.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Apparently jealous of the "attention" some Democratic members of Congress have gotten this past week (and by attention, I mean spitting, racial epithets, ugly homophobic name-calling, rocks and bricks through windows, threats of violence and death, vandalism, and at least one threatening letter with a white substance in it), GOP Congressdick Eric Cantor (aka "Skeletor") told the media his office had been fired upon.
Well, no, Eric, it wasn't. The large office building your office is in had a window hit by a bullet falling from the sky to the ground. Did you think no one (outside of Fox News) would notice your BIG FAT FUCKING LIE?
You see, Eric, in order to actually become a target of angry bigots and narrow-minded hate-mongers, you have to NOT BE ON THEIR SIDE. What's more,you have to be willing to act with conviction, take chances, do what's right despite threats, have courage, and generally be a leader. You have never displayed any of these behaviors or traits. You are a sycophantic Tea-Bagger bitch. You are the safest person in the Deliverance woods, right now. No one is firing a gun at you.
There must have been a deal on lobotomies in the Massachusetts Costcos. I see no other explanation for the election of this Twinkie.
First of all, he posed naked in Cosmo. Who takes this person seriously?
Second, since taking office, he has gone form one gaffe to the next lie so fast it's hard to keep up.
Let's see, first he pimped out his daughters.
Then he proclaimed that the stimulus bill "did not create one new job." I think we all know that's not true. Even Senator Barenipples knows it's not true.
Recently, he sent a fundraising letter to rightwingnuts claiming that he needs money to fund his campaign against the very formidable likely democratic candidate, Rachel Maddow. Except that Rachel Maddow isn't going to run against him. She said so. Repeatedly. He just made this shit up. "Let's see, whose name can I pick out of my ass that would really scare the Tea Baggers? Oh, I know, that gay chick, Rachel Maddow. Mwa ha ha ha ha.")
Is there anything to this guy of substance? Or is he just Brittany Spears with an American Flag lapel pin? So far all he has shown us is skin and fluff. Isn't that the definition of a Twinkie?
Friday, March 19, 2010
Unfortunately for conservative intellectuals in the US, their movement has been co-opted by bigots. Conservative Americans (like Goldwater) used to believe that people's private lives and private decisions were (shockingly) private. The idea of imposing moral ideologies on all members of society based on the religious views of a few, or even the majority, is not a "conservative" idea since it involves the government imposing on purely private behavior. But starting with Ronald Reagan, American conservatives made an ironic deal with "the devil." And the problem with making a deal with the devil is eventually, he wants his due.
Starting with Reagan, the GOP began courting the many splintered groups of Christian evangelicals. They started publicly opposing abortion, and adopted fiery rhetoric: abortion = "murder;" single mothers = "irresponsible welfare abusers;" political opponents = "unpatriotic;" favoring diplomacy = "weak and liberal." You get the gist.
At its foundation, the christian evangelical movement is united by shared conservative, fundamentalist religious beliefs. They believe they are right, and everyone else is wrong. They also believe everyone else is going to hell. But they have other things in common. (And I am going with generalize here, because people are judged by the company they keep.) They tend to be racist, homophobic, anti-immigration, anti-science, and lately we learned, they also tend to be secessionists. So when this becomes the base of your conservative political party, what do you do?
Well, the GOP: elects morons (Palin, W,Bachman, and a whole slew of people who think God literally created the entire universe in 6 days); tramples the constitution and basic human rights (detaining so-called terror suspects for years without trial or legal counsel, spying on American citizens without warrants, torturing people); explodes the national debt and budget deficits (fighting wars that are not paid for
and cutting taxes for the richest Americans while not funding education programs); and I could go on. Do I need to?
Well, now those good right-wing Christians, who are so easy to whip into a lather, demand to see President Obama's birth certificate. (Here it is, BTW. It's on the internet in about a bazillion places.) They are stockpiling guns despite the fact that Obama has made no move to restrict either weapons or ammunition. They believe our federal government wants to murder them through an elaborate health care system. They think Obama is Hitler, Stalin, the Anti-Christ, and a sleeper Muslim terrorist born in Kenya, all at the same time. I know humans have complex brains, but I cannot comprehend how these folks can simultaneously believe so many completely contradictory things. Nor do I understand how they can accuse "liberals" of being "unpatriotic," when they are ready (and threatening) to secede and "rise again" in another civil war. Doesn't that make them unpatriotic?
Conservatives got in bed with these frigid prudes, and now they are going to have to marry them. Yup. The party of Lincoln is full of confederate-flag waving bigots because that's what they asked for. The GOP has convinced them that they are the only "real Americans." That they are somehow entitled to have their point of view imposed on people despite the fact that we supposedly live in a free society. And now that they have infested the party of abolition, they are not leaving. Not really. Don't be fooled by the Tea Baggers. You can see the GOP daily begging these fringy fools to come back into the fold.
So having fomented revolutionary thoughts and bigoted hatred, what is the GOP going to do with its members? Is it going to give them what they want? Is it going to kick Obama out of the White House despite his natural citizenship? Is it going to lock him up in Gitmo and torture him 'til he confesses to being a terrorist? Is it going to really take evolution education out of public schools and replace it with creationism? Is it even going to try to do these things? I want to say "of course not," but the patients have so taken control of the asylum, that I'm a little worried.
My question is: Can the GOP find a true conservative to lead it? Is there one left?
Thursday, March 18, 2010
I had an epiphany. Don't freak. I don't think I am Jesus or Mary or Isis or anything. And I'm not starting a cult. I just had a moment of clarity. Here it is:
Why don't people get married for periods of time shorter than "'til death do us part?" More than half of modern marriages end in divorce, so why don't we change marriage to allow couples to marry just for periods of time that they agree to.
Marriage is a contract. And a contract can specify a period of time. So why not?
Judeo-Christian morality aside ('cause clearly that's not helping prevent adultery, domestic violence, or divorce) can you think of a reason?
One could argue that children are involved. But they are involved in divorce too. This way, there's way less emotional upset and shock, and expectations are different. The same support laws could apply. I'm just not seeing the problem here. Some people just need to start seeing marriage for what it is in our modern world. For most people, it is not permanent. It is temporary. Why not adjust our expectations and laws to address reality?
Advantages of the RampantAnthem Marriage Construct:
1 - Allows horny religious people who refuse to engage in sex outside of marriage to comply with moral constructs and not completely ruin their lives.
2 - Allows/requires people to reassess their relationships when the end date of their marriage approaches. This can't be a bad thing.
3 - Reduces the commitment phobia by allowing people to "try" marriage.
We are basically serial monogamists anyway. Lets just make it legal and make honest men and women of us all, and reduce the burden on divorce courts.
Slightly unrelated note: Divorce should be automatic when one spouse is found guilty of abuse, or any crime that results in imprisonment. Wouldn't that simplify things?
Friday, March 5, 2010
This is pathetic and infuriating. Let's call it "pathuriating." (OK, not as good as stupil, I admit.)
California democrat, state Senator Roy Ashburn, renown for his anti-gay voting record, was arrested for DUI (he blew a 0.14 blood-alcohol) after LEAVING A GAY BAR. Sacramento's openly gay Mayor told the media he's seen Ashburn in gay bars "a number of times." (I think he just meant he has "observed" him there. I don't think he is "seeing" him.)
Just going to a gay bar does not mean he's gay. Even if he's been in gay bars "a number of times." I'm sure he just goes for the fancy, fruity drinks and the modern electro-dance music. But I'm sure he's not actually gay, 'cause that would make him a big, flaming, hypocrite, or "hypo."
Self-loathing is a sad thing, and I don't doubt that Ashburn felt he had to vote to discriminate against himself in order put another lock on that closet. But maybe seeking counseling in between visits to the men's room to "mingle" with your "constituents" would be more helpful that numbing your feelings with booze - and then driving a car drunk.
Finally, if your gonna pull this hypo, self-loathing shit, join the GOP. You'll fit right in.
Since first posting this, Roy has publicly admitted he's gay. *shock!*
Thursday, March 4, 2010
"Stupil" is a new word I just made up. It applies to the most extreme combinations of "stupidity" and "evil."
stupid + evil = STUPIL.
How are they stupid? Let me count the ways -
(1) Because hating someone for being different is ignorant bigotry. There is no rational or moral justification for such animosity against people who simply are attracted to members of the same gender. So, stupid is the best word I can think of for this.
(2) Because they purport to be "Christian," but clearly have no idea what the primary teachings of Jesus were. When asked what the most important commandment was, Jesus did not say "To hate fags" (sorry, stupil assholes). He answered that the most important commandments - there are 2 - are to love God and love one another. There were no qualifications or conditions, just "love one another." So, the signs would be more accurate if they said "God loves fags."
(3) Because they pretend to know and understand the mind and feelings of their God. Right. I'm sure He (or She or It) spoke to you from the bottom of your Bud Lite can or from your favorite NASCAR driver's ass.
There are more reasons they are stupid, like denying evolution, thinking Obama is a foreign born sleeper terrorist, etc., but let's move on to evil.
They are evil because they not only harbor hate towards innocent people, but because they take to the street encouraging others to do so as well. It is a campaign of hate. Ironically, these stupil fuckers like to compare Obama to Hitler. But in fact, their propaganda campaign against the gays and lesbians (and presumably bisexuals and transsexuals) is a "final solution" type movement. To hate something is to desire its utter destruction. And to hate a group of people is to desire their annihilation. So yeah, they are evil. If you disagree, convince me that I'm wrong!
The good news is these stupil idiots come out in the light of day, so we can see who they people are.
On a lighter note - please notice the one sign depicting the stick figures in position to engage in "rear entry-course" - though apparently without penis or anus. The stick person in the back is like half the height of the stick person in the front. Odd couple. But I say live and let stick figures live.