Random Thoughts on a Tuesday

I have to admit that the ever-lovable rat bastard Newt Gingrich is on the side of the angels when it comes to calling for the resignation of Alberto Gonzales, but this quote from Newt strikes me as a little disingenuous:

“This is the most mishandled, artificial, self-created mess that I can remember in the years I've been active in public life.”

Really? He’s never seen anything more artificial? I could have sworn Gingrich was alive when Ken Starr and the Republican piranha were trying desperately to bring down Bill Clinton.

* * *

Dick Cheney is on record as recently as this past weekend, still insisting that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Proving, alas, that there’s no fool like an old fool.

* * *

To the mentally challenged bloggers and trolls who insist that certain Democratic presidential candidates are cowards for not participating in a debate sponsored by the Bush/Cheney shills at Fox News, I offer this helpful language tip:

The word “coward” would only be appropriate if a candidate refused a direct challenge to debate. The current crop of candidates has a number of “debates” already scheduled, so it’s not like anyone’s scared of stating his or her position in public. I applaud any public figure who chooses not to legitimize the Republican Public Relations Network.

That said, I assume all the major networks will cover whatever political debates occur between now and the next election. But as lazy as the mainstream media is, and as much as they’re trying to reduce American politics to a contest between front-runners (CBS News has already begun to refer to Obama, Clinton, Edwards, McCain, Guiliani, and Romney as the Big Six), I wouldn’t be surprised to see them cut to a commercial when it’s time for someone like Dennis Kucinich to speak.

If they even to deign to acknowledge him at all.

Maybe They’ll Get Pat Boone To Do Their Theme Song

Are you familiar with the Christian Exodus movement? It’s an organized effort to persuade Christians to relocate to specific legislative districts in South Carolina in order to take over the government. They feel the current federal government has unjustly usurped its powers, and say they want to “return to the model of governance of a constitutional republic.”

A lofty goal. And on the surface, given the autocratic machinations of the Bush regime, one we all might feel a bit of empathy with.

The C-Exers also take a strong stand against religious persecution, noting that “people of all faiths must have the same rights and freedoms guaranteed to them under law.” Neither will they tolerate any racial discrimination in their Brave New South Carolina.

Right on, right?

Not so much. It pretty much goes down the tubes right after that.

Because when you take a close look at the Christian Exodus website, you’ll see that what it boils down to is this: “We need our own sovereign nation because this big mean one refuses to let us force Christian prayers on non-Christian students in school. Oh, and because we need a place where homos aren’t protected by laws.”

Honestly. That’s the gist of it.

They just aren’t into that “liberty and justice for all” thing.

The website is an interesting read, depending on your level of tolerance for unmitigated bullshit. They have a whole list of alleged ways in which the current government infringes on their liberties, so let’s start there:

• Abortion continues against the wishes of many States and in violation of the reserved powers of the States under the 10th Amendment.

This is the first item in their list, and it’s a perfect example of the movement’s rather bizarre definition of liberty, to wit: “We have the liberty to force you to bear children.”

• Christians are denied their rights to free speech, freedom of the press, the display of religious monuments, and other expressions of faith in the public sphere.

Boy, they’re still honked off about Crazy Roy Moore, aren’t they? Dammit, they want the liberty to use everyone’s tax dollars to promote their religion, even if it means taking over South Carolina and turning it into the 5000-Pound Ten Commandments Monument Capital of the World.

• Men, women, and children are involuntarily exposed to the corrupting influences of homosexuality, pornography, and other perversities protected and financed by the national government.

What, we have socialized porn now? What perversities are being financed by the national government? This is a case where some links to actual examples would be helpful, particularly if you’re trying to avoid ridicule. I have no idea what they mean here. In a free society, you’re going to run across some corrupting influences now and again. Whether you choose to be corrupted by them is your business.

That said, I don’t think children should be exposed to pornography, either—but I suspect the C-Exers’ definition is far more inclusive than mine, and that it includes Playboy, the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition, and the MacNeil-Lehrer Report.

Either way, if you’re keeping score, none of the items covered so far actually infringe on the liberties of the members of the Christian Exodus movement.

• Sodomy is now legal and celebrated as "diversity" by order of the U.S. Supreme Court rather than condemned as perversion.

Aside from the rather hysterical notions that a sexual position can be “celebrated” as diversity and that the Supreme Court has ordered it so, and aside from the fact that decriminalizing sodomy in no way infringes on the liberties of those who choose not to perform it (bringing the total of infringed liberties to a solid zero), this item is a classic example of something these people spend way too much time thinking about. Have you noticed that? They’re obsessed with sodomy. They’re obsessed with other men’s rear ends. I’ll bet they have secret copies of Naked Lunch with their favorite sections dog-eared and highlighted. Hell, I’ll bet I don’t spend as much time thinking about women as these moral crusaders do thinking about men (and yes, the board of directors of the Christian Exodus movement, the ones who presumably wrote their creed, are all men). Folks, it’s none of your business. Grow up.

• Children who pray in public schools are subject to prosecution.

The nice thing about the internet is that when you have a point to prove, a point that might require some sort of evidence, you can just link directly to it. In this case, the Christian Exodudes could have linked to that famous story about the police busting up the big school prayer ring and the DA indicting all those kids on prayer charges.

Of course, maybe there’s no link because there’s no such story. And maybe there’s no such story because children who pray in public schools are not subject to prosecution.

I think the Christian Exodus movement is counting on the fact that the audience they’re trying to reach aren’t exactly known for their critical thinking skills.

• Our schools continue to teach the discredited theory of Darwinian evolution.

It’s worth pointing out that the only people even trying to discredit the theory of evolution also believe there were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark. And that there was such a thing as Noah’s Ark.

Now, the Christian Exodus website also says that if they can’t achieve their goals within the United States (in other words, if the law gets in the way), they’d consider seceding from the union as a last resort.

Well, if you must, you must. Don’t let the Constitution hit you in the ass on the way out.

Some Final Thoughts

I don’t have the capital to pull this off, but if these people manage to secede from the US and have their own little Aren’t-We-Holy Land, I have a feeling that some entrepreneur could make a tremendous fortune by setting up booze-and-porn emporiums all around the borders in North Carolina and Georgia.

And by the way, even though they say on their website that they have no desire to establish a theocracy, you can find evidence to the contrary just a few paragraphs away. I found this a bit confusing, so I called the CE headquarters to see if they could enlighten me.

Runes: Hello there. It says on your website that the Christian Exodus movement is not interested in forming a theocracy—
CE Guy: That is correct. No interest at all. No theocracy for us.
Runes: But it also states your intention to rewrite the state constitution to include such things as recognizing the Ten Commandments as the foundation of law.
CE Guy: You bet.
Runes: Doesn’t that sound like a theocracy to you?
CE Guy: A theocracy? No! That’s crazy! Wait—a theocracy is slices of ham, turkey, and bacon between two slices of bread, isn’t it?
Runes: No, that’s a club sandwich.
CE Guy: Oh. Well, maybe we do want a theocracy.

Won't Someone Please Think of the Nylon?

I was all set to lambaste Iowa Republicans this morning, but after exploring the issue further I learned that both parties deserve the razzberries. Pardon my strong language.

Last week a U.S. district judge ruled that Iowa’s flag-desecration laws are too vague to enforce and thus unconstitutional. That made sense. Obviously no one should be allowed to take someone else’s flag and “deface, defile, mutilate, or trample” it, but if you pay your hard-earned money for a flag it’s yours to do whatever you want with—and that includes using it to make political statements.

So this morning in my groggy state of barely-awakeness, I heard on the radio that some Republican state representative had introduced a bill to clarify the law and make it easier to enforce. Typical, I thought—leave it to the Money Party to spend their time protecting pieces of nylon.

But later I checked out the story on the Des Moines Register website and found that I’d misheard the story. What actually happened was that the house had voted 95-0 to add an amendment clarifying the flag law to a bill that establishes a counseling program for veterans. So instead of moving to just repeal the law and standing up for the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, Iowa Democrats joined the GOP in treating the flag like a human being—a delicate, fragile human being.

Faux What It’s Worth

By and large, conservative pundits spend a lot of time pretending to misinterpret things that anyone with common sense has already interpreted correctly. I understand that they have to do this try to fool the people who aren’t paying close attention (and to validate the don’t-confuse-me-with-facts mindset of the staunch Bush supporters), but it’s still dishonest, and they know it.

One of the dumbest examples is the flap last October over John Kerry’s poorly told joke about staying in school. Did these hacks really think Kerry was disparaging the intelligence of American troops? Of course they didn’t. But if they’d reported the story honestly, they couldn’t have stirred up the ignorant faithful.

I found a new example yesterday in a column by Kathleen Parker. In it she discusses John Edwards’ hair and a YouTube video that sets footage of Edwards being prepped for a TV appearance to the song “I Feel Pretty” from West Side Story. Parker says this video could have a “potentially devastating effect” on Edwards and presumably his campaign, but that’s either an extreme overreaction or wishful thinking. It’s a two-minute video: Edwards brushes his hair for about a minute, then the makeup technician fixes him up with some spray, and then he examines himself in a mirror—which I interpret as wanting to look good for the appearance but which the person who added the music wants us to believe has some dark meaning about vanity and unmanliness.

Either way, it’s a goof. I suspect Edwards might think it’s pretty funny. Parker goes on to say that she has, in the past, defended Edwards “for being cute,” but then adds this:

…It’s not his fault that he’s rich. At least it’s not un-American, even if his populist “Two Americas” message rings a little faux as he builds a 28,000-square-foot monument to Ego. I mean, a house.

Could this be an example of someone pretending to misinterpret Edwards’ “Two Americas” concept? Golly whiz, it sure could.

Edwards’ populist message would only “ring faux” if he had never demonstrated any awareness of the growing gap between rich and poor, or empathy toward the latter. It would ring faux coming from the mouth of someone like Barbara Bush. It would ring faux if he purchased a company and then moved all the manufacturing jobs overseas, or if he reincorporated it in Bermuda to cheat the government out of some tax revenue and line the pockets of shareholders.

But here’s a man who’s campaigning for a position in which he could directly address the issue. The square footage of his home has no bearing on his ability to see a problem and try to fix it. I don’t think he has to pass out five-dollar bills on the street or invite the homeless to live with him to prove his sincerity.

You don’t forfeit your right to see the big picture just because you have money.

Starting the Morning Off Wrong

My clock-radio is set to the local NPR station, and I know I’ve mentioned this before but I can’t freakin stand to hear George Bush’s voice in the morning. It just starts my day off wrong and makes me angry because I know that whatever he says is either going to be a lie or some sort of jingoistic throw-up.

I suppose it’s unrealistic to think that the media might stop putting him on the air until he has something important or intelligent to say.

Anyway, this morning the radio came on and what did I hear but the poor dope blathering on about a “partisan fishing expedition,” which of course is his clever way of describing the Congressional investigation into the politically-based firings of eight federal prosecutors by the Bush flunky Alberto Gonzales. It’s not partisan to terminate qualified prosecutors based on their lack of loyalty to an incompetent president, but it is partisan to investigate those terminations. Got it.

The poor dope also said he’d fight any attempt to subpoena his staff members, but would allow his henchmen Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to be interviewed in private, without a transcript, and not under oath. In other words, you can talk to them, but they have license to lie through their teeth.

What else could we expect from an administration of such fine moral character?

Bigotry That Stands the Test of Time

I’m a daily reader of a blog called Dispatches From the Culture Wars, by a guy named Ed Brayton up in Michigan. Good commentary, day after day. Ed is a common-sense guy and a staunch defender of freedom of speech, among other things. I heartily recommend this blog to all two of my regular readers.

One of Ed’s blog entries this morning directed my attention to some commentary by former presidential candidate and Angry White Man™ Pat Buchanan, who weighed in on General Peter Pace’s opinion equating homosexuality with such immoral behavior as adultery.

I’m going to keep my definition of immorality short and sweet, and say that for something to be truly immoral, someone has to get hurt. Murder, rape, assault, robbery, adultery, wars of aggression, etc and so on. I don’t believe there’s a victim when consenting adults commit homosexual acts.

And that brings us to Buchanan, who writes:

On Pace’s side, that homosexuality is immoral, we have the Bible and Quran, 2,000 years of Christianity, Orthodox Judaism and natural law, the moral beliefs of virtually every society to the present, and the laws of every state before the 1960s. Up to 1973, psychiatrists treated it as a disorder. Nations where homosexuality is rampant have been regarded as “decadent.”

I don’t want to accuse Pat Buchanan of talking out his ass, but that’s pretty much what he’s doing. He lazily hides behind “the moral beliefs of virtually every society” and the “laws of every state” without questioning whether those beliefs and laws might have originated from superstition and misunderstanding. He brings up the outdated psychiatric classification of homosexuality-as-mental-disorder, and even correctly notes that that line of thinking was abandoned more than 30 years ago—but won’t dare let himself think the next logical thought: The medical community no longer classifies homosexuality as a mental disorder because it isn’t one.

You don’t get to have grandfather laws for bigotry and intolerance, Pat Buchanan. Maybe people have been harassing, victimizing, and discriminating against homosexuals for 2000 years, or for 5000 years, or since the beginning of time. No matter how long it’s been, it’s the oppressors who are wrong, not the oppressed.

When your beliefs run counter to reality, the burden of change is on you.

Fladdap!

This happened a month ago, but it took me that long to think up a good joke for it.

Is there anyone who hasn't heard of Eve Ensler's one-woman play, The Vagina Monologues? More to the point, is there anyone who hasn't heard the word “vagina”?

Last February a production of The Vagina Monologues was being staged at the Atlantic Theater in Atlantic Beach, Florida. In a shocking move, the theater actually put the name of the play on their marquee in a brazen attempt to attract the ticket-buying public.

But they failed to take into consideration that some people do not choose to acknowledge the existence of certain body parts. The theater received a phone call. Someone had taken offense.

The caller was a woman who said she was upset that her niece (three or four years old, depending on various online accounts) had seen the word and asked what it meant. And instead of taking the straightforward road and giving her a simple definition, instead of taking the safe road and clearing it with the girl’s parents first, instead of taking the comical road and saying “Well, sweetie, a monologue is a speech delivered by a single actor alone on stage,” this woman—apparently related to the Iowa dillrod* who got his panties in a knot about the “F NADER” license plate—decided it would be best to raise a ruckus.

As a result—and by the way, I’m getting very near the joke I promised in the first paragraph—the theater changed the marquee to read “The Hoohah Monologues.”

To their credit, they changed it back to the proper name of the play not long after. But it occurred to me just now that if I bought a ticket for The Hoohah Monologues, I’d have every right to expect to see a stage adaptation of the best of Mad magazine, starring Melvin Fonebone and Roger Kaputnik.

Thank you! Good night, everyone!

* * * *

*If you’re unfamiliar with the Iowa dillrod story, you can find it in the Runes archive, August 2006: Brought To You By the Letter F.

An Exclusive Interview with Pope Benedict XVI

You don’t even want to know what kind of red tape I had to go through to get this interview, or, hell, maybe you do. Let’s just say that I had 24 visitors to this site last week, and for those two who weren’t me, I’ll go to any lengths to provide something you can’t get at any other blog. Something besides my little caricature up there.

Transcript of my interview with Pope Benedict XVI:

Runes: Thanks for meeting with me, Pope. Now, it was reported this week—
Pope: Please—call me Your Holiness.
Runes: (laughing) You’re kidding, right?
Pope: It’s customary.
Runes: Ennh. Tell you what. I’ll do what I used to do when I needed to talk to my old girlfriends’ parents and couldn’t bring myself to call them by their first names: I’ll look directly at you when I want to ask you a question.
Pope: Fair enough.
Runes: Of course, it’s a one-on-one interview, so who else would I be talking to? Now, it was reported last week that you were unhappy about your predecessor, Pope John Paul II, attending a 1997 concert at which Bob Dylan performed. You, in fact, tried to talk him out of it.
Pope: That is correct.
Runes: What were you afraid of? Did you think Bob was going to change some of his songs around to make them more appropriate for the Vatican? Did you think he was going to sing “Lay, Laity, Lay”?
Pope: No, of course not—
Runes: “Leopard-Skin Pillbox Pope Hat”?
Pope: No, no—
Runes: “Changing of the Swiss Guards”?
Pope: I don’t even know the song that’s based on.
Runes: Yeah, it’s from Street-Legal.
Pope: No wonder.
Runes: Did you think he was going to do “Desolation Rome”?
Pope: What?
Runes: How about “Most Likely You Go Your Way And I’ll Go Talk Out My Ass About Birth Control”?
Pope: Now you’re just being rude.
Runes: Well, that’s also all the parody song titles I can come up with off the top of my head. Back to the question. Why didn’t you like the idea of Dylan singing for John Paul II?
Pope: Because rock music is a tool of Satan.
Runes: A tool of Satan.
Pope: That’s what I said.
Runes: (calling to an assistant) Could you check a calendar and see what year this is? 2007? No, yes, that’s what I thought, but I had a moment of doubt there. (turning back to the Pope) In a way, I agree with you—you should see the way this Elvis Presley character gyrates his hips onstage. It’s obscene, I tell you.
Pope: I was under the impression he died.
Runes: (scoffs) OK, you just keep telling yourself that. But seriously. Rock is a tool of Satan? Cite your sources, please.
Pope: I’ve long held the belief that electric guitars have no place in a house of worship.
Runes: Because—?
Pope: Well, when you think of the word “sacred,” do you think of loud music? Do you think of “waka-ja-wow-wow-weeeeeoooooww-deedily-deedily-deedily-deedily-deedily-deedily-waa-waa-wampa-ka-wow”?
Runes: Honestly, no. But may I just say that was a very impressive air guitar riff.
Pope: That’s off the record.
Runes: Right, right. Anyway. I and other Dylan fans would contend that his music has a positive message, even if it isn’t necessarily sacred—
Pope: Doesn’t matter. Tool of Satan.
Runes: It doesn’t matter what the message is?
Pope: Nope.
Runes: Even if it’s “Love your neighbor”?
Pope: Even if it’s “Love your neighbor.”
Runes: Even if it’s “Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you”?
Pope: Even if it’s “Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you.”
Runes: Even if it’s “Think for yourself”?
Pope: Even if it’s—especially not “Think for yourself”!
Runes: Yeah, I didn’t think you’d like that one. How about if the message is “Jesus is just all right with me”?
Pope: Was that Dylan?
Runes: No, it was the Doobie Brothers.
Pope: Tools of Satan. They’ve got “doobie” in their name.
Runes: So pretty much any rock or pop act of the last 50 years is a tool of Satan, according to you.
Pope: Try naming one that isn’t.
Runes: Elvis?
Pope: Tool of Satan.
Runes: Jimi Hendrix.
Pope: Tool of Satan.
Runes: Janis.
Pope: From “The Muppet Show”?
Runes: No, Janis Joplin.
Pope: Tool of Satan.
Runes: OK, how about Janis from “The Muppet Show”?
Pope: Tool of Satan.
Runes: The Who.
Pope: T-t-t-t-t-t-tool of Satan.
Runes: Cyndi Lauper.
Pope: Tools of Satan just wanna have fun.
Runes: Devo.
Pope: Are we not men? We’re tools of Satan.
Runes: You’re having fun with this, aren’t you?
Pope: I’m just callin’ ‘em like I see ‘em.
Runes: The Beatles.
Pope: Tools of Satan.
Runes: Queen.
Pope: Tools of Satan.
Runes: Emerson, Lake, and Palmer.
Pope: Pretentious neoclassical prog-rock with impenetrable lyrics and overblown production. And tools of Satan.
Runes: Is there any pop or rock artist or group I could mention who isn’t, in your mind, a tool of Satan?
Pope: Yes. There is one.
Runes: You’re kidding. Are you going to make me guess it?
Pope: No, I’ll come right out and tell you. I always enjoyed Musical Youth.
Runes: Musical Youth.
Pope: (tape runs out just as he begins singing “Pass the Duchy” and boogieing out of the room like the guy on the “Keep on Truckin’” t-shirt)

Random Thoughts on a Friday in Des Moines

I just caught a glimpse of this Yahoo News headline: “Bush hails biofuels pact in Brazil.”

Well, good for him. Hail away, dumbass. Take a tour of South America and pretend to give a damn about alternate fuels while the blood of Americans and Iraqis is still drying on your hands.

* * *

Wednesday’s Des Moines Register reported that a bill banning discrimination against gay, lesbian, and transgender people has made it out of committee and will proceed to the Iowa Senate.

The story quotes Republican state senator Jerry Behn of Boone, who said “I don't think it's necessary.”

Let’s see. There are a couple of ways to interpret that statement, Jerry. Do you mean “It’s not necessary because I’ll fight to the death to prevent discrimination against any human beings under the laws we already have!”?

Or do you mean “It’s not necessary because I think good Christian folks should be allowed to discriminate against anyone who offends their narrow little minds”?

I’m just asking. The good news is that both houses of the Iowa legislature are controlled by people with a little more on the ball than those who favor discrimination, so this bill should become law easily.

* * *

The Register website has a place for people to post comments anonymously, and while most of the comments on the above story were fairly supportive, there were some half-baked thoughts from a handful of homophobes, including this one:

Ain't it great that something that was classified as a mental illness is now gaining normal status? Funny what $$$, mainstream media, and pandering politicians can get you today.

I’m amazed that someone with that little going on upstairs has the wherewithal to use the serial comma, but that’s where my amazement ends. It’s been 30-odd years since homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder, and an infinite number of years since it actually was one, but here’s a guy who thinks that bribery—as opposed to common sense and empathy—is the reason for the growing acceptance of gay men and women.

Quite a reach you got there, Sport.