From the monthly archives: June 2009

Lest people start getting too many ideas about me being some kind of wild-eyed liberal, let me point out that my strong libertarian/anti-hippie streak reads stuff like this and cringes:

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom last week signed legislation that will require both city residents and businesses, including restaurants, to compost food scraps, beginning this fall.

Believed to the first mandatory composting law in the nation, the legislation is part of the city’s broader plan to divert 75 percent of resources from landfills by 2010 and to achieve zero waste by 2020.

Metavirus filed this under: ,  

Supreme and all-powerful douchebiscuit Norm Coleman has finally given up on his Sisyphean, RNC-financed struggle to subvert the will of the Minnesota electorate:

“I just congratulated Al Franken on his victory,” Coleman said in a press conference with reporters. “I told him it’s the best job he’ll ever have — representing Minnesota in the United States Senate. The Supreme Court has spoken, I will respect its decision, and abide by its results,” Coleman also said.

Franken said he talked to Coleman and “we agreed that it is time to bring the state together.”

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican, said he will sign the election certificate Tuesday as directed by the court and applicable law.
May Dog have mercy on the GOP lecture circuit…

Metavirus filed this under: ,  

Some Christianist nutjob in the Oklahoma legislature is up to her old tricks again:

Last year, Oklahoma state legislator Sally Kern (R) drew well-deserved criticism for an outlandish rant against the gay community, in which she compared homosexuality to “toe cancer” and said “it’s the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam.” “Studies show that no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than, you know, a few decades. So it’s the death knell of this country.”

Though activists responded to her comments with protests, Oklahoma conservatives rallied around her, saying that they “stand with and support Sally.” Now, Kern is back, once again sparking controversy for her attacks on the LGBT community.

Kern is now pushing a “Oklahoma Citizen’s Proclamation for Morality” that blames America’s “economic woes” on “abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse ,and many other forms of debauchery”:

WHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis; and

WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery;

And people still wonder why I feel so put upon as a gay man in our oh-so-modern society.

It’s not as if most people consider me to be an evil, predatory monster who is more dangerous to our country than Islam or toe cancer. It’s just some wackadoos in places like Oklahoma!

Thanks, that makes me feel much better.

I really do have to agree with Amanda Marcotte, this article by wingnut David Klinghoffer really is just about the best/worst attack on gay marriage in the history of the universe ever:

Consider this piece from the first century BCE poet Catullus (Carmen 61:134-141), in which the poet addresses himself to a bridegroom on the eve of his nuptials:

“You are said to find it hard, Perfumed bridegroom, to give up Smooth-skinned boys, but give them up… We realize you’ve only known Permitted pleasures: husbands, though, Have no right to the same pleasures.”

The social history behind this piece is clear: once they’ve experienced sex with other men, Catullus tells us, men are unsatisfied with what their new wives provide them. Notice that the poet is unconcerned about the husband’s dallying with other women—it’s the other men around that threaten the marital union.

Marcotte dissects the argument behind this historical drivel thusly:

Okay, let’s see if you can follow this. If men are allowed to marry other men, women will lose out because because they when marry men—which at leas Klinghoffer will concede will still be legal—they will not be able to keep their marriages together because once a guy has tasted forbidden man flesh, he can’t go back to inadequate lady flesh. Men can step out with other women without threatening the main marriage, because apparently it’s just easier for men to close their eyes and imagine that the missus is the mistress long enough to complete his conjugal duties. So if gay marriage is legalized, all the men will want to fuck each other, and women will have no one decent to marry. Women can’t marry each other, of course, because a) Klinghoffer keeps forgetting about lesbians when he’s dwelling on the delicious images of an ancient Roman cornucopia of manflesh and b) just like men, women can’t lower themselves to touching women once they’ve sampled the dudely goods.

Let’s face it. No one wants vagina when penis is available, end of story. You, like Klinghoffer, know that if you ever succumb even once to the urge to reach out and touch a cock, you will forever be ruined, never able again to muster enough pleasure out of a union with a lady to get through it.

But what I find really interesting about Klinghoffer’s argument is this—he’s trying to argue against gay marriage. Like many panicked wingnuts, he seems to think that legalizing gay marriage=legalizing dudes fucking each other. What they fail to understand is that dudes can already legally fuck each other.
Read the whole article.

I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again: We’re in for a long, long winter of complete and utter batshit insanity from the wingnut right.

FYI: I got slammed with a bunch of work today so my posts may be a bit sporadic over the next few days. Keep checking back. I haven’t forgot about you :).

 

A little bit of a global perspective is always helpful in the heathcare reform debate:

“[A]ll Canadians should have reasonable access to quality health care regardless of their ability to pay.” — Founding Principles of the Conservative Party of Canada
Methinks American Republicans would consider their Canadian counterparts to be downright socialist (or is it fascist, or Nazist? it’s so hard to keep up with the name-calling…)

h/t Yglesias

Matt Yglesias highlights some interesting numbers from a new WaPo/ABC poll:
obamacongress
His assessment of the larger meta-picture surrounding this is right on the money:
The ability of the GOP to avoid concern-trolling from the media has been pretty impressive. You might think, ex ante, that offering blind, root-and-branch opposition to the popular agenda of a popular president would be a path to political disaster. And, indeed, the evidence suggests that blind root-and-ranch opposition to the popular agenda of a popular president is making Republicans very unpopular. But they have, at least, succeeded in mostly getting to press to cover their obstructionism as a problem for Obama rather than for them.
Someone tell me again about that allegedly evil liberal media bias?