Tuesday is Newsday!
Here are your headlines for April 4, 2006:
TRAPPED IN THE CLOSET: Literally. Canadian activist James Loney was captured in Iraq by a terrorist cell and held hostage while his colleague was killed. Meanwhile his partner back in Canada was forced to remain silent on the issue because it turns out Loney is gay. Loney was part of a Christian activists group and the entire organization kept his sexual orientation a secret, knowing it would make him "more vulnerable" while being held captive for four months. And yeah, while it's nice that people are protective and willing to hold their silence to protect their loved ones, especially nice to see a Christian organization going to such lengths considering the backlash we tend to have toward Christian organizations and their views on homosexuality. But. Yes, of course there's a 'but.' It doesn't change the fact that it's still harder to be gay than straight, in the middle east especially but all over the world. And we need to remember that just because we live in societies that generally treat gays as equal, most of the world doesn't. Our efforts need to be global, and they need to start with education. Bush has it wrong--war and invasion aren't the building blocks of revolutionary democracy, education is, and until he understands that, the world (and Iraq) will remain much as it is. Of course, Bush isn't doing anything to educate people in his own country, but the real tragedy is that he has no desire to do so, either.
THEY'RE COMING TO TAKE ME AWAY (HAHA): Apparently liberals and secularists are at war with Christianity. So what do Christians frightened that pop culture is going to destroy Christianity do? They hold a conference, of course.
Okay so, let me get this straight. Apparently, most of the US is NOT Christian? And all us heathens are forcing Hollywood and the music industry to inundate out culture with anti-Christian propoganda so that, um, we can destroy a 2000-year-strong religion because it is so powerless and helpless in the face of Scary Movie 3 and King King? Um yeah. Sorry dudes, I'm not buying it. I'm pretty sure that Christians are in power in this country. You know how I know? Because they ARE. I don't think I can even dignify this idiocy with proper arguments because there's not much more I can say to something so retardedly wrong except STOP BEING RETARDED, OMG. Christian conservatives should be enjoying their reign of terror. Abortion has been banned in (I think) 3 states; gay marriage in at least 15; they control all three branches of federal government. I think they're doing okay without the support of Susan Serandon and George Clooney.
BRITNEY AND THE BEAR: I give you this link with the warning that it contains graphic scenes of a disgusting nature. For some reason a sculpture called Daniel Edwards thought to himself one day, "Daniel, what would the ultimate pro-life statement be? Ah yes, a sculpture of Britney Spears giving birth in a completely impossible birthing position on a bear skin rug. Delightful." The sculpture pretty much speaks for itself, although I have to say that looking at it makes me want to abort any embryo that attempts to implant itself in my womb. And also, it looks nothing like Britney. Maybe if he gave it pigtails or a giant snake...
ETA: This spoof (hat tip: emmagrant01) is the funniest thing I have seen pretty much ever.
TWO DADDIES: Hey guess what? I know you'll find this super surprising, but apparently gay people can be good parents, too. Wow, shocker, that. A new study came out recently that looked at families from 16 different states across the US, finding that basically, gay people are just as competent parents as straight people and their kids are just as well adjusted. And probably more tolerant, too. Which brings me to my love of the arguments that anti-gay adoption folks use to push the issue:
a) Their kids will grow up gay - Now, this seems to be a big fear for some people. Because there's still the whole nature/nurture argument out there, and sometimes I think it'd be a lot easier if there actually was a gay gene. We could call it "fabulosity" or something. At least then no one could be accused of making their child gay, and people would stop saying that it's a choice. Because I know so many people who would CHOOSE to be discriminated against, denied rights, and forced to live life as a second class citizen. Sounds like a great time.
b) Gay parents are molesters - Um. Right. No see, that's called pedophilia, and it's completely different. Let's talk to the Catholic church about that before we go around accusing gay people of wanting to hurt children.
c) A child deserves a mother and a father - This argument fails on so many levels. First off, the child has NEITHER and will be lucky to get adopted in the first place, rather than linger in the foster care system where he will no doubt be treated like shit. Second off, 50% of marriages in the US end in divorce. I think that argument speaks for itself. Thirdly, I know a lot of lesbians who were way more manly than my dad. So stop trying to box up the gender roles, please.
Anyway. The only state that has officially banned gay adoption is Florida, which we will all remember from when Rosie came out and couldn't adopt her kids. Which, come ON. I would love to be adopted by Rosie O'Donnell. She'd pay for college and probably buy me new clothes whenever I wanted them. And I'd get to meet Madonna, although honestly, that's not such a perk anymore.
WHY FEDERALISM WORKS: Massachusettes upheld a 1913 miscengenation law today that was basically designed to keep other states from having to recognize interracial marriages. Only of course now it's applying to the Massachusettes state law allowing gay unions, basically stating that other states don't have to recognize those unions. Which on the surface looks crappy, but it's how our government works and it's WHY it works. No one can deny that the United States is a heavily polarized nation, and we are polarized by region place. Is it fair to force Alabama to recognize a Massachusettes state law when most Alabamans don't agree with that law? Probably not, although it would be nice if we could change their minds. Money quote from Andrew Sullivan:
Along with other federalist conservatives, I believe in the right of individual states to make their own decisions on marriage rights. They are so doing. I think it makes sense in a country as diverse and polarized as this one to allow Alabama to have different laws on gay relationships than, say, Oregon. What Massachusetts has now done therefore is to destroy the last crumbling pillar of the argument for a federal constitutional ban on all legal protections for gay couples. The whole point of this amendment was supposed to be to stop Massachusetts marriages from being "forced" on neighboring or other states. Now, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled these marriages invalid out of state before they even begin! The debate is now over, right? And the Republicans will withdraw their polarizing "Marriage Protection Amendment" from Congress this summer, right? There's no need for it whatever now, is there?
This would be true if the point of the vote was to actually ban gay marriage, but we all know it's not. The point is to take people's minds off the fact that the Republican party is one of corruption masking itself in Christian virture, doing everything for the safety of the nation. But I'm sorry, we don't live in a Machiavellian state, we live in a democracy, and come November it will be the people's chance to make their voices heard. If the democrats don't take back Congress after all the fodder the Republicans have given them, they totally FAIL at life. And politics. But mostly life.
IT'S A BLUE WORLD AFTERALL: I love this map.
AND THE CROWD GOES WILD: So. Tom DeLay. Has. QUIT. Thank god, who has finally answered my prayers! In all likelihood God had nothing to do with it, of course--I'm pretty sure the Republican party leaned hard on him to quit so they would have a better chance in the elections this fall. The democrat who was supposed to run against DeLay got ousted out of his Congressional seat by DeLay's gerymandering shenanigans in 2002. If he wins it would be very cathartic, although somehow I doubt that Sugarland is going to elect a Democrat, especially when he's no longer running against a man indicted on charges of money laundering with close ties to Jack Abrahmoff. My favorite bit in all this is what Bush had to say on the subject: "Our party will continue to succeed, because we are the party of ideas." Uh huh. Ideas like, lying to the American people is awesome! And, Hey I know--let's go start a civil war in Iraq! And the ever famous, NO BLOOD NO FOUL, aka We don't need no stinking Geneva Convention. He's a uniter, not a divider, folks. And his grandfather laundered money for the Nazis. No, really.
ABORTION KILLS: So it looks like 6 women have died in the US from the Abortion Pill--RU-486. In contrast, no women have died in France where the pill has been legal for years, and some are saying it's because the follow up drug for the 6 dead women was administered vaginally rather than orally. UGH, I don't even know where to go with this. A lot of doctors are pushing surgical abortion now, and sure, they're probably saying that because it's safer, but on the other hand, the history of doctors as related to abortion and child birth in this country is, um, not good. The entire reason we have abortion regulation is because the medical profession wanted to control childbirth ie, take the control away from midwives and open up a huge new field for themselves. Abortion pills seem like a backward move for the medical profession (ie the woman doesn't need a doctor to have an abortion) so I have to wonder how hard the AMA pushed against RU-486, what their stance is on abortion, etc. We need to remember that Christian conservatives are not the only ones with a stake in keeping women from having abortions.
IRAQI GENOCIDE: So, hang on a second! You mean, Saddam Hussein is EVIL? He killed people? WHAT? How could no one have know--oh right. We did. So this news that Hussein is being charged with committing genocide isn't actually news at all. Here's what gets me about this whole thing. So Saddam is on trial, and all of a sudden it looks like the reason we invaded Iraq was the save the poor Kurds from being mass murdered. Except that it happened in 1988. Hmmm, it seems like we had a war right after that, and we decided not to go into Iraq and to just leave Saddam be with like, weapons inspectors and sanctions. Why was that again? Oh right, because George Bush (either one) doesn't care about genocide! And while we're at it, so Saddam killed 50,000 kurds and we've got him on trial and it's a big spectacle, and yet we do nothing about the hundreds of thousands of people who have been killed and raped and tortured in Darfur. I think this is a great way to show Old W's priorities. He really doesn't care about black people. He doesn't care about kurds, either. He just wants their oil.
MORE DEMOCRACY IN ACTION: Remember when Bush decided he didn't like Hamas winning the election in Palestine and joined forced with Israel to try to force Hamas to back down through financial intimidation? Now he doesn't like Iraq's Premier, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, and has been pressuring him to step down. Jaafari's response: FUCK YOU. Only not in those words exactly, but pretty much. Basically Bush's contention with Jaafari is that he's in cahoots with an anti-American cleric because the guy has a giant militia, which of course gets in the way of American officials and is, you know, anti-American. But Jaafari, like Hamas, was democratically elected. He followed the process and now he has the power. Bush should know a little something about being appointed President, you'd think he'd have some sympathy. Hell, at least the man was elected. My point being (and yes, I have one) that Bush can't keep throwing fits everytime democracy doesn't go his way. He needs to take a step back and try to actually understand the politics behind these alliances and the elections that formed them, rather than being reactionary and declaring things evil just because they don't fall into his vision of how they should be. Bush is like a 3-year-old. He wants what he wants when he wants it, and he's too stupid to understand why mommy won't let him eat all the ice cream.
FEINGOLD, MY HERO: I almost feel sort of sorry for Russ Feingold in his attempt to get Bush censured. I get where he's coming from--Bush lied to the American people, he broke the law, he invaded our privacy and then pretended that Congress gave him the right to do so. When Nixon tried that shit, he nearly got impeached. When Clinton got his dick sucked and then debated the technicalities of oral sex, he DID get impeached. But Bush just keeps trucking on, and I can understand Feiingold's frustration that nothing is being done about it.
But I get why other Democrats aren't jumping on this bandwagon. We knew it was wrong to impeach Clinton. The whole thing was a mess and we don't want seem vindictive, especially not in election year. And that's really the crux of this issue--we can't censure the president in an election year, when he's already fucking things up left and right, because that will move the issue from how retarded he is to how horrible democrats are for accusing the president of wrong-doing, and then we've lost. Which sucks, because seriously he needs to be STOPPED and not censuring him just makes him think that he can keep doing this shit. It's like when my cat tries to climb the cords on my computer. If I don't spray him with the water bottle, he'll think it's okay to use the cords as his personal climbing wall. But on the other hand, if spraying him means I have to keep the Republicans in power in the Congress... cunundrum.
ETA: In a random, unrelated note, my sister informs me that the creator of Supernatural went to my high school. He was in her class, and was apparently a giant dick. But creative. For our student run/written/created musical (CougaReview), he applied with something he called "America's Funniest Home Funerals." Which sounds pretty aweosme to me, actually. Better than the CougaReview I was in, which had something to do with the X-Files and involved literal debriefings.
And that's pretty much it for Newsday. Not as brilliant as usual, but I am tired and my boss is evil, so cut me some slack, yo.
TRAPPED IN THE CLOSET: Literally. Canadian activist James Loney was captured in Iraq by a terrorist cell and held hostage while his colleague was killed. Meanwhile his partner back in Canada was forced to remain silent on the issue because it turns out Loney is gay. Loney was part of a Christian activists group and the entire organization kept his sexual orientation a secret, knowing it would make him "more vulnerable" while being held captive for four months. And yeah, while it's nice that people are protective and willing to hold their silence to protect their loved ones, especially nice to see a Christian organization going to such lengths considering the backlash we tend to have toward Christian organizations and their views on homosexuality. But. Yes, of course there's a 'but.' It doesn't change the fact that it's still harder to be gay than straight, in the middle east especially but all over the world. And we need to remember that just because we live in societies that generally treat gays as equal, most of the world doesn't. Our efforts need to be global, and they need to start with education. Bush has it wrong--war and invasion aren't the building blocks of revolutionary democracy, education is, and until he understands that, the world (and Iraq) will remain much as it is. Of course, Bush isn't doing anything to educate people in his own country, but the real tragedy is that he has no desire to do so, either.
THEY'RE COMING TO TAKE ME AWAY (HAHA): Apparently liberals and secularists are at war with Christianity. So what do Christians frightened that pop culture is going to destroy Christianity do? They hold a conference, of course.
Okay so, let me get this straight. Apparently, most of the US is NOT Christian? And all us heathens are forcing Hollywood and the music industry to inundate out culture with anti-Christian propoganda so that, um, we can destroy a 2000-year-strong religion because it is so powerless and helpless in the face of Scary Movie 3 and King King? Um yeah. Sorry dudes, I'm not buying it. I'm pretty sure that Christians are in power in this country. You know how I know? Because they ARE. I don't think I can even dignify this idiocy with proper arguments because there's not much more I can say to something so retardedly wrong except STOP BEING RETARDED, OMG. Christian conservatives should be enjoying their reign of terror. Abortion has been banned in (I think) 3 states; gay marriage in at least 15; they control all three branches of federal government. I think they're doing okay without the support of Susan Serandon and George Clooney.
BRITNEY AND THE BEAR: I give you this link with the warning that it contains graphic scenes of a disgusting nature. For some reason a sculpture called Daniel Edwards thought to himself one day, "Daniel, what would the ultimate pro-life statement be? Ah yes, a sculpture of Britney Spears giving birth in a completely impossible birthing position on a bear skin rug. Delightful." The sculpture pretty much speaks for itself, although I have to say that looking at it makes me want to abort any embryo that attempts to implant itself in my womb. And also, it looks nothing like Britney. Maybe if he gave it pigtails or a giant snake...
ETA: This spoof (hat tip: emmagrant01) is the funniest thing I have seen pretty much ever.
TWO DADDIES: Hey guess what? I know you'll find this super surprising, but apparently gay people can be good parents, too. Wow, shocker, that. A new study came out recently that looked at families from 16 different states across the US, finding that basically, gay people are just as competent parents as straight people and their kids are just as well adjusted. And probably more tolerant, too. Which brings me to my love of the arguments that anti-gay adoption folks use to push the issue:
a) Their kids will grow up gay - Now, this seems to be a big fear for some people. Because there's still the whole nature/nurture argument out there, and sometimes I think it'd be a lot easier if there actually was a gay gene. We could call it "fabulosity" or something. At least then no one could be accused of making their child gay, and people would stop saying that it's a choice. Because I know so many people who would CHOOSE to be discriminated against, denied rights, and forced to live life as a second class citizen. Sounds like a great time.
b) Gay parents are molesters - Um. Right. No see, that's called pedophilia, and it's completely different. Let's talk to the Catholic church about that before we go around accusing gay people of wanting to hurt children.
c) A child deserves a mother and a father - This argument fails on so many levels. First off, the child has NEITHER and will be lucky to get adopted in the first place, rather than linger in the foster care system where he will no doubt be treated like shit. Second off, 50% of marriages in the US end in divorce. I think that argument speaks for itself. Thirdly, I know a lot of lesbians who were way more manly than my dad. So stop trying to box up the gender roles, please.
Anyway. The only state that has officially banned gay adoption is Florida, which we will all remember from when Rosie came out and couldn't adopt her kids. Which, come ON. I would love to be adopted by Rosie O'Donnell. She'd pay for college and probably buy me new clothes whenever I wanted them. And I'd get to meet Madonna, although honestly, that's not such a perk anymore.
WHY FEDERALISM WORKS: Massachusettes upheld a 1913 miscengenation law today that was basically designed to keep other states from having to recognize interracial marriages. Only of course now it's applying to the Massachusettes state law allowing gay unions, basically stating that other states don't have to recognize those unions. Which on the surface looks crappy, but it's how our government works and it's WHY it works. No one can deny that the United States is a heavily polarized nation, and we are polarized by region place. Is it fair to force Alabama to recognize a Massachusettes state law when most Alabamans don't agree with that law? Probably not, although it would be nice if we could change their minds. Money quote from Andrew Sullivan:
Along with other federalist conservatives, I believe in the right of individual states to make their own decisions on marriage rights. They are so doing. I think it makes sense in a country as diverse and polarized as this one to allow Alabama to have different laws on gay relationships than, say, Oregon. What Massachusetts has now done therefore is to destroy the last crumbling pillar of the argument for a federal constitutional ban on all legal protections for gay couples. The whole point of this amendment was supposed to be to stop Massachusetts marriages from being "forced" on neighboring or other states. Now, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled these marriages invalid out of state before they even begin! The debate is now over, right? And the Republicans will withdraw their polarizing "Marriage Protection Amendment" from Congress this summer, right? There's no need for it whatever now, is there?
This would be true if the point of the vote was to actually ban gay marriage, but we all know it's not. The point is to take people's minds off the fact that the Republican party is one of corruption masking itself in Christian virture, doing everything for the safety of the nation. But I'm sorry, we don't live in a Machiavellian state, we live in a democracy, and come November it will be the people's chance to make their voices heard. If the democrats don't take back Congress after all the fodder the Republicans have given them, they totally FAIL at life. And politics. But mostly life.
IT'S A BLUE WORLD AFTERALL: I love this map.
AND THE CROWD GOES WILD: So. Tom DeLay. Has. QUIT. Thank god, who has finally answered my prayers! In all likelihood God had nothing to do with it, of course--I'm pretty sure the Republican party leaned hard on him to quit so they would have a better chance in the elections this fall. The democrat who was supposed to run against DeLay got ousted out of his Congressional seat by DeLay's gerymandering shenanigans in 2002. If he wins it would be very cathartic, although somehow I doubt that Sugarland is going to elect a Democrat, especially when he's no longer running against a man indicted on charges of money laundering with close ties to Jack Abrahmoff. My favorite bit in all this is what Bush had to say on the subject: "Our party will continue to succeed, because we are the party of ideas." Uh huh. Ideas like, lying to the American people is awesome! And, Hey I know--let's go start a civil war in Iraq! And the ever famous, NO BLOOD NO FOUL, aka We don't need no stinking Geneva Convention. He's a uniter, not a divider, folks. And his grandfather laundered money for the Nazis. No, really.
ABORTION KILLS: So it looks like 6 women have died in the US from the Abortion Pill--RU-486. In contrast, no women have died in France where the pill has been legal for years, and some are saying it's because the follow up drug for the 6 dead women was administered vaginally rather than orally. UGH, I don't even know where to go with this. A lot of doctors are pushing surgical abortion now, and sure, they're probably saying that because it's safer, but on the other hand, the history of doctors as related to abortion and child birth in this country is, um, not good. The entire reason we have abortion regulation is because the medical profession wanted to control childbirth ie, take the control away from midwives and open up a huge new field for themselves. Abortion pills seem like a backward move for the medical profession (ie the woman doesn't need a doctor to have an abortion) so I have to wonder how hard the AMA pushed against RU-486, what their stance is on abortion, etc. We need to remember that Christian conservatives are not the only ones with a stake in keeping women from having abortions.
IRAQI GENOCIDE: So, hang on a second! You mean, Saddam Hussein is EVIL? He killed people? WHAT? How could no one have know--oh right. We did. So this news that Hussein is being charged with committing genocide isn't actually news at all. Here's what gets me about this whole thing. So Saddam is on trial, and all of a sudden it looks like the reason we invaded Iraq was the save the poor Kurds from being mass murdered. Except that it happened in 1988. Hmmm, it seems like we had a war right after that, and we decided not to go into Iraq and to just leave Saddam be with like, weapons inspectors and sanctions. Why was that again? Oh right, because George Bush (either one) doesn't care about genocide! And while we're at it, so Saddam killed 50,000 kurds and we've got him on trial and it's a big spectacle, and yet we do nothing about the hundreds of thousands of people who have been killed and raped and tortured in Darfur. I think this is a great way to show Old W's priorities. He really doesn't care about black people. He doesn't care about kurds, either. He just wants their oil.
MORE DEMOCRACY IN ACTION: Remember when Bush decided he didn't like Hamas winning the election in Palestine and joined forced with Israel to try to force Hamas to back down through financial intimidation? Now he doesn't like Iraq's Premier, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, and has been pressuring him to step down. Jaafari's response: FUCK YOU. Only not in those words exactly, but pretty much. Basically Bush's contention with Jaafari is that he's in cahoots with an anti-American cleric because the guy has a giant militia, which of course gets in the way of American officials and is, you know, anti-American. But Jaafari, like Hamas, was democratically elected. He followed the process and now he has the power. Bush should know a little something about being appointed President, you'd think he'd have some sympathy. Hell, at least the man was elected. My point being (and yes, I have one) that Bush can't keep throwing fits everytime democracy doesn't go his way. He needs to take a step back and try to actually understand the politics behind these alliances and the elections that formed them, rather than being reactionary and declaring things evil just because they don't fall into his vision of how they should be. Bush is like a 3-year-old. He wants what he wants when he wants it, and he's too stupid to understand why mommy won't let him eat all the ice cream.
FEINGOLD, MY HERO: I almost feel sort of sorry for Russ Feingold in his attempt to get Bush censured. I get where he's coming from--Bush lied to the American people, he broke the law, he invaded our privacy and then pretended that Congress gave him the right to do so. When Nixon tried that shit, he nearly got impeached. When Clinton got his dick sucked and then debated the technicalities of oral sex, he DID get impeached. But Bush just keeps trucking on, and I can understand Feiingold's frustration that nothing is being done about it.
But I get why other Democrats aren't jumping on this bandwagon. We knew it was wrong to impeach Clinton. The whole thing was a mess and we don't want seem vindictive, especially not in election year. And that's really the crux of this issue--we can't censure the president in an election year, when he's already fucking things up left and right, because that will move the issue from how retarded he is to how horrible democrats are for accusing the president of wrong-doing, and then we've lost. Which sucks, because seriously he needs to be STOPPED and not censuring him just makes him think that he can keep doing this shit. It's like when my cat tries to climb the cords on my computer. If I don't spray him with the water bottle, he'll think it's okay to use the cords as his personal climbing wall. But on the other hand, if spraying him means I have to keep the Republicans in power in the Congress... cunundrum.
ETA: In a random, unrelated note, my sister informs me that the creator of Supernatural went to my high school. He was in her class, and was apparently a giant dick. But creative. For our student run/written/created musical (CougaReview), he applied with something he called "America's Funniest Home Funerals." Which sounds pretty aweosme to me, actually. Better than the CougaReview I was in, which had something to do with the X-Files and involved literal debriefings.
And that's pretty much it for Newsday. Not as brilliant as usual, but I am tired and my boss is evil, so cut me some slack, yo.