Political Games - Where the fuck’s the reset button?

So apparently The Rude Pundit likes making people laugh and weep at the same time. In discussing the miserable excuse for a 21st [hell, I’d have taken 20th!] Centuray Constitution they’ve drawn up, the Rude Pundit… ya know… here’s the intro.

It’s strange that an enormous, almost ridiculously micromanaging document like the Iraqi draft constitution ought to come down to its use of a single word. And while one could easily say that the fact that the document begins with a shout-out to the “Sons of Mesopotamia” means women are shat on from the outset and that the line, “No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam,” means that Iraq will become mullahrific, it’s a single word, used a couple of times in the entire constitution, that means Iraq is fucked.

So now you’re hooked. What’s the word? What single word could describe the colossal clusterfuck that has become Iraq? Well… he takes a paragraph… I don’t even know how to describe it. Just read. But a warning before you do. The mental images may cause your brain to explode.

It is the word that, if amended to the U.S. Constitution, would make the Christian right go into a weeklong orgy the likes of which Babylon only dreamt of. James Dobson would go down on the withered, dusty snatch of Phyllis Schlafly while Chuck Colson, having a prison flashblack, fucks Dobson in the ass as Ted Haggard, madly jacking off, shoves a butt plug into the heaving, weeping Watergate criminal. Such madness would ensue, with Beverly LaHaye unable to fit enough cocks into her mouth to satisfy her, with Tony Perkins and Cal Thomas sword fighting on top of her lapping tongue. Surrounding it all will be a circle jerk of Pat Robertson, Tom DeLay, and Antonin Scalia, who has his prostate massaged by Clarence Thomas to ensure Lil’ Tony gets his full mojo going. Goddamn, Gomorrah was destroyed for less, with the piles of bald eagle guts that the fucking mass will devour raw, with Terri Schiavo’s stolen ashes mixed with blood smeared all over them, with virgin female members of Campus Crusades for Christ deflowered by trains of megachurch goers right on top of huge marble Ten Commandments monuments. Such grace, such smells, such screeches. But it’d be a once in a lifetime celebration over one word. A word that is part of the Iraqi constitution to be voted on by the people of that pseudo-nation in the coming weeks.

Wow. Yeah. That’s pretty intense. So what the hell’s the word? The word is…. morality.

Article 17, Part 1 reads: “Each person has the right to personal privacy as long as it does not violate the rights of others or general morality.” Article 36 says that freedoms of “expressing opinion by all means,” “of press, publishing, media, and distribution,” and “assembly and peaceful protest” are guaranteed “as long as it does not violate public order and morality.” And in that one word, “morality,” the hopes of a free and open and democratic Iraq are as dead as the soldiers falling there as this is written.

The rest is great; go read it.

Share This

mm, I love the smell of jackass in the morning. Jack Chambliss on Faux News:

[T]he founding fathers never intended, Article One, section Eight of the Constitution, never intended to provide one dollar of taxpayer dollars to pay for any disaster or anything that we might call charity. What we now have is the law of unintended consequences taking place, where FEMA has come into New Orleans, a place where, ecologically, it makes no sense to have levees keeping the Mississippi River from flooding into New Orleans, like it naturally should.

Only Faux News could have a discussion on whether or not America should use tax dollars to rebuild one of its major cities while tens-hundreds of thousands of people are dead and dying and suffering. But hey, why stop with one course? Cause nothing screams dessert like a nice heaping serving of cockbiting fucktard. Chickenhawk General Jonah Goldberg on why we shouldn’t be concerned about the poor people any more than the rich:

But what I objected to, and still object to, is the reflexive playing of the class card. Is it really true that some middle class retirees who heeded the advice of the government to leave town, only to watch their homes be looted after a lifetime of hardwork for a better life are suffering less than a poor person who lost his rented apartment? What’s the metric for measuring this sort of suffering? What about the small businessman who worked his entire life to build something he’s proud of? What about the families who lost loved ones, but had the poor taste to make more money than the poverty line?

Whatever happened to the idea that unity in the face of a calamity is an important value? We’re all in it together, I guess, except for the poor who are extra-special.

No you dumbass, the poor are extra vulnerable because THEY COULDN’T LEAVE THE CITY and aren’t going to have food, water, or shelter for a long time: weeks! The small businessman has money, and can therefore live. Yes, it sucks that everything he’s worked for was destroyed, but that’s why we liberals want to be spend tax dollars to help people a. live and b. rebuild their lives. Of course, the way FEMA has been screwed over by Commander Cuckoo Bananas the past 4 years might make things even more difficult, but the least we can do is try. Jeez, all we need now is for some Christian group to blame the gays for the hurricane and this’ll officially become a wingnutfest.

Oh, wait.

But to show some real compassion, why don’t we all go here and find out what we can do to help. Thanks Instapundit!

Share This

Right on the heels of the ACLU report, we have “fair-and-balanced” Faux News telling us that anyone in the military who disagrees with Bush should be arrested. Because nothing’s more traitorous than… um… fighting for your country? I don’t quite understand exactly, but I think I need to be reminded again how liberals don’t support the troops.

Share This

I know, I know, we’ve “known” this for a while now. It belongs in a memo entitled “Shit We Already Know”. Nonetheless, the release of official documentation from the FBI calling peace and affirmative action groups “terrorists” confirms the fact that our government thinks protesting its actions is equivalent to attacking it. No, it’s NOT funny when Pill-Popping Rush or Ann “Let’s Blow Up The NY Times” Coulter makes a “joke” about us being terrorists, or killing us, or deporting us, or putting us in prison. It’s not a joke, and it’s not a few bad apples, it’s not some fringe groups. It’s the Federal Bureau of Investigation, it’s the U.S. Government. This is what the Right is about; the elimination of its opponenets, be it through intimidation [like “terrist” painted on a family’s hosue whose address was given out by Faux News] or outright violence [the militia movement]. Enough is enough. We can’t stand by and let them do this. Let’s expose them for the radical nutcases they are.

Share This

First, let me extend my thoughts to the people on the Gulf Coast, especially in New Orleans, and I ask you to do the same.

Second, regarding the post below, I wanted to refine my thoughts a little bit. To do so, I’m going to use Wolcott’s definition of a chickenhawk:

[A] chickenhawk is a cheerleader. A cheerleader for war. And not necessarily just the war in Iraq, or regional war in the Mideast, but war in general. A chickenhawk glorifies war as an enterprise, enjoying the heroics inside his or her head, mocking those less enthusiastic military aggression as pacifists, appeasers (Michael Ledeen’s pet word), even traitors. Who patronize anyone with qualms, from the Quakers to the Chuck Hagel, with edgy impatience and disdain. Who treat the destruction of human life as a stupendous flourish as long as it’s the US doing the destroying–who, that is, propose “creative destruction” on a geopolitical scale as an instrument of transformation. Not to mention an opportunity to teach those desert folks in sandals a lesson upside the head.

Those are the ones who need to get off their pampered asses; not necessarily the supporters of our decision to go to war, but rather those who actively cheer for war, and think we’d be that much closer to victory if only we just screamed a little louder. These people are scum. They love war. They love violence. They love death. So long as they don’t have to be a part of it. Think I’m using hyperbole?

“There’s a luscious double trap in starting the war as soon as possible, Mr. President. Your enemies are delirious with excitement about the corporate-greed scandals and the effect they might have on your popularity and the GOP’s standing in November.

“If you get troops on the ground quickly, they will go berserk. Incautious Democrats and liberal pundits will shriek that you’ve gone to war solely to protect yourself from the corporate-greed scandal. They will forget the lesson they so quickly learned after Sept. 11, which is that at a time of war the American people want their political leaders to stand together.

“Your enemies will hurl ugly accusations at you, Mr. President. And at least one of them will be true - the accusation that you began the war when you did for political reasons.

“But that won’t matter. It won’t matter to the American people, and it won’t matter as far as history is concerned. History will record that you and the U.S. military brought an end to a barbaric regime on its way to threatening the world.” -John Podhoretz

That was said in 2002, late summer. He’s calling for us to invade Iraq so the republicans can win the 02 elections [as it turned out, the push for war was all the Repubs needed to take those elections. Remember, a paraplegic Vietnam War vet Democratic Senator was a coward and traitor?]. That’s the mark of a scumbag. And to wrap it up, let’s go to Captian Chickenhawk himself, Jonah Goldberg!

“WHY IRAQ? …Well, I’ve long been an admirer of, if not a full-fledged subscriber to, what I call the ‘Ledeen Doctrine.’ I’m not sure my friend Michael Ledeen will thank me for ascribing authorship to him and he may have only been semi-serious when he crafted it, but here is the bedrock tenet of the Ledeen Doctrine in more or less his own words: ‘Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.’ That’s at least how I remember Michael phrasing it at a speech at the American Enterprise Institute about a decade ago (Ledeen is one of the most entertaining public speakers I’ve ever heard, by the way).

[snip snip snip snip]

“…there will be plenty of time later to dissect and debate every argument, good and bad, for toppling Saddam. For now let’s fall back on the Ledeen Doctrine. The United States needs to go to war with Iraq because it needs to go to war with someone in the region and Iraq makes the most sense.” [all emphasis mine]

That about says it all doesn’t it? We have to kill some brown people, and the poor bastards in Iraq were the most convenient. Fucker.

Share This

I wrote below [now waaay below] about that woman who told the recruiter military service wasn’t for “our kind of people”. On that line of thought, some liberals have created Operation Yellow Elephant, where liberals go to young Republican/conservative conventions and try to recruit them into the military to help the war in Iraq: in other words, put up or shutup. So far, the response has been… well… less than one would expect. Oh who am I kidding, this is exactly what we were expecting: the majority of warmongers are cowards who’d sooner send someone else to go die for their war than put their own life on the line. And this video shows that. What kind of lame excuse is “There are some people here who’d like to join, but for some reason they can’t”? Such as? They’re too busy telling us liberals on their blogs and in their speeches that we’re not patriotic enough? That we need to sing “God Bless America” louder? Well you know what, Fuck you all. This is your war. You’re the ones who told us we were insignificant pro-terrorist pro-Saddam pansies when you sold the war, you’re the ones who called us pessimists when we warned that things were going to go badly, you’re the ones who called us traitors and shouted and got your War-President re-elected. And now military recruitment is down and the U.S. military is stretched thin. If you’re of military age and decently healthy, then get off your pampered asses and go help win your war. I know “your kind of people” isn’t use to making actual sacrifices, but your country needs you.

For those of you who do support the war and are actually fighting in it, I have the upmost respect for you. It’s these clowns I despise.

Share This

Or as some men like to call it, nature’s rubix cube. Anyway, you may be wondering why I’m writing a post on this. The first thing that probably popped into your head was “oh god he’s going to talk about his sex life”, but look! It’s not filed under personal, or heather-related; it’s under Science. Yes, I decided to add a new category. Yay science! So I’m browsing PZ Myers blog, as always, and he had an entry up regarding a book which explores the evolutionary origins of the female orgasm. The book examined the many different hypotheses on the subject, analyzed them, and came to the conclusion that one fit the evidence more. This hypothesis holds that the female orgasm developed primarily as a counterpart to the male orgasm, or as the book describes it, a “byproduct” of it. Apparently people don’t understand what this means [they think that she’s either arguing that the female orgasm is worthless, or that a male orgasming causes a female to orgasm]. So she’s come up with an alternative term:

Lloyd is not arguing that the virtue of orgasms lies in their ability to promote pregnancy in women (although that is exactly the idea the adaptive hypotheses for it are promoting)—she’s demonstrating that many androcentric assumptions about female orgasm, such as that it promotes pair-bonding with the male, or assists sperm to enter the reproductive tract, or encourages women to lie about in a puddle of semen, are just not credible or supported by any good evidence. She suggests that maybe she should change the label from “byproduct” to “fantastic bonus” to get around this naturalistic bias, but I don’t know that I agree. I suspect that a great many human features we like are byproducts (OK, “fantastic bonuses”), and people need to get used to that fact. That a specific feature has been the target of selection does not necessarily mean it is “better” in social terms.

If you don’t want to read the book—which would be unfortunate, it’s an excellent read—at least go read the briefer explanation at Philosophy of Biology. And, ladies, have orgasms because they’re fun, not because you think they will help your partner get you pregnant with his child. [all emphasis mine]

Heh yes ladies, enjoy orgasms for their own sake, regardless of the evolutionary history that develeoped them. Have fun

Share This

Hell Yeah!! All I can say is Hunter completely knocks the ball out of the stadium. The basic point of the piece is that single-advocacy groups are great and absolutely necessary… but when it comes to elections, they too often are willing to sacrifice every single other progressive issue in the interest of their pet issue. Hunter provides an example.

Let’s suppose I have three candidates to choose from:

# One has a solid pro-choice record, but is dismissive of gay rights.

# One is solid on gay rights, but unnervingly middling on pro-choice statements.

# One is solidly anti-war, and powerfully effective at it. But an unknown, when it comes to privacy and rights issues.

Pick which one I should support. Now.

And God help both you and me if I choose wrong, because I’ve just fucked a hell of a lot of my fellow citizens, much less world travelers. Big time.

Or should I stay home and not vote at all, because no one candidate meets ALL the very specific tests I have?

Or should I make the best judgment I can based on the best possible common good, and fight like hell for the rest of it once I have someone in office that at least shares the best possible common ground for those debates?

That’s all this single-issue, not-single-issue argument is about. That choice, right there, and how to make it. It’s not about “disrespecting” people, or “abandoning” people, or “not understanding the severity” of the issue. It’s about the fundamental problem with representative democracy: if you’re not your own representative, you’re by definition going to have to figure out who should be. And it’s a brutally imperfect process.

[snip]

This isn’t a damn political fantasy football game. Do we honestly think that these miraculous candidates are actually out there, that agree with you, me, him, her, grandma, grandpa, and the dog all at the same time? On economic issues? Gun control? Gay rights? Affirmative action? Women’s rights? Religious freedoms and separations? Educational opportunities for my children?

Critical public health issues?

War?

[snip]

But to reduce all possible campaigns, strategies, candidates, and elections to subserviency to the particular internal strategies of one particular team of advocates is to doom the entire progressive movement to division into one Party per possible stance per possible issue. It’s the advocacy groups’ task to advocate. It’s then up to the rest of us — you and me — to weigh them all together and come up with some possible amalgamation that, if possible, screws noone overtly, and leaves noone behind.

[snip]

But don’t presume that anyone who has a different strategy than you isn’t “serious” enough, or “liberal” enough, or whatever-the-hell-else suddenly rises in your throat because a certain partisan dared throw a critical paragraph or two towards your life-defining issue, as opposed to all the other life-defining issues and strategies that you were just fine in criticizing every other day of the week. A meaningful debate can’t work that way.

There are large parts of the Democratic infrastructure that are a mess, and there are significant forces that have great personal advantage in keeping it that way. This is going to get messier before it gets better. We can fight as we must, in this interim period, but at the end of the day it’s time to get off the damn horse, and help pull the wagon. You, me, Kos — all of us. You pull my issue, and I’ll pull yours. That’s the only way out of this godforsaken place.

I guess the best summary of this is: See the forest from the trees. Recognize that you’re pet issue is important, but so is mine, and his, and hers, and my grandma’s, and my dog’s. Let’s stop the circular firing squad; not stop the disagreements you understand. But we need to stop getting so wrapped up in one particular issue that we’re willing to sacrifice every other progressive and liberal value. That’s counter-productive. Let’s get the best candidates we possibly can, swallow our pride when they disagree with us on issues, and advance the overall liberal agenda.

Share This

I’m going to enjoy writing this post. And I guarantee that, regardless of your political leanings, you will enjoy at least part of it. First up on my rant comes the news that Commander Kuckoo Banana’s approval rating is 40% or lower in 3 polls, including Gallup. And the vast majority of people say public dissent is acceptable [in your face, right-wing pundits!]. So in this kind of political atmosphere, especially where the GOP has tied itself to the Bush Presidency, things should be looking up for the Dems, right? 2006 should be looking up, right? Well… not so much. Armando sees the GOP trying to blame the Dems for the war, and explains why it might work:

This could only be done if the Democratic Party is the most inept political operation in the history of mankind. Oh wait.

[snip]

So who lost Iraq? Bush and the Republicans. Say it now. Say it loud. Heck, if Chuck Hagel can say it, why can’t Democrats? I know I know - the most inept political operation in the history of mankind.

And to round it all off, Fafblog provides the text of an insightful interview with the leading Dem 08 candidates:

FAFBLOG: So what’s up, Democrats?
JOE BIDEN: What’s up is the war in Iraq, which is terribly mismanaged, Fafnir.
FB: Oh wow! Are you guys against the war, too?
JOE LIEBERMAN: Oh no, we’re not AGAINST the war!
HARRY REID: We’re all FOR it!
BIDEN: It’s the best worst idea in the world, and we’re gonna run with it to victory!
HILLARY CLINTON: Watch me eat a bug!
FB: So we can actually win the war! That’s great news!
LIEBERMAN: Yes!
REID: Sort of!
BIDEN: Maybe!
CLINTON: I can wrestle a buffalo!
FB: I’m confused.
REID: The problem is troop levels, Fafnir. The US invaded without enough boots on the ground!
LIEBERMAN: Just another couple hundred thousand soldiers on the ground and hey, we should have this thing wrapped up in no time!
BIDEN: Just like I told George Bush all along! I told him in the Oval Office, “You’re gonna go in without enough troops and you’re not gonna plan for the occupation and it’s gonna be the biggest mistake of your presidency and I’m gonna vote for it!”
FB: Wow, that all seems so prescient.
BIDEN: And then Batman jumped in through the window and said “Senator, the Justice League needs you right away!” and I said “Shut up and move, rich boy, we’ve got a moon to save!”
CLINTON: I have eaten the heart of a gorilla!
FB: So how come you guys voted for the war if the president was gonna screw it up?
REID: We were misled!
LIEBERMAN: We were deceived!
BIDEN: We were given the impression that the war was actually a match of bareknuckle fisticuffs between a mustachioed Brooklyn brawler and a plucky midget Irishman!
CLINTON: Wanna see me punch out a yak? ‘Cause I will!
FB: Will the lies never end. But where will we get the troops from now, Democratic Party? Aren’t we runnin out of em?
REID: We’ve used up plenty of REAL troops, sure, but what about FAKE troops? Why isn’t the military pounding the streets looking to recruit new mannequins, crash-test dummies and hand puppets?
LIEBERMAN: Our nation’s rich supply of blow-up dolls has barely begun to be explored for national security purposes.
BIDEN: To say nothing of our nation’s patriotic trained seal and dolphin population! When will the Pentagon deploy the 101st Fighting Shamu Brigade?
CLINTON: I can tear a boulder in half with my teeth!
FB: Yknow you’re right! An that’s not even countin what our friends in the fungus kingdom could do.
LIEBERMAN: And you know, Fafnir, if we could train the Iraqi forces to replace our forces more efficiently, we could end the occupation that much faster.
FB: That’s such a great idea I can’t believe nobody’s thought of it before! How do we do that?
REID: Voodoo!
LIEBERMAN: Santeria!
BIDEN: Giant samurai robots piloted by magical fairy children!
CLINTON: If elected I promise to rampage through New York City and swat biplanes from the top of the Empire State Building until my grisly and untimely demise!
FB: Now I like everything I’ve heard so far today but for some crazy reason most Americans think we should just start pullin our troops OUT of Iraq. Are most Americans crazy?
REID: They’re not crazy, Fafnir.
LIEBERMAN: They’re just weak, willing to expose America’s flabby underbelly to the curved scimitars of a thousand swarthy terrorists.
BIDEN: We can’t blink, man! That’d be like… like losing an arm-wrestle to Allah or something! Game over, man! Then they know we’re pussies!
CLINTON: I will go back in time and become Richard Nixon and lose the Vietnam War twice as hard as anybody!
FB: Yknow you guys got tons a great ideas but you won’t be able to do anything with em unless you win some elections again. How’re you gonna do that?
REID: By listening carefully to the American people, and then ignoring them.
LIEBERMAN: By forcefully arguing against the direction George Bush is taking this country!
BIDEN: Just before we vote for it again.
FB: Thanks, everybody! It’s always great to hang out at the Democratic Party.
CLINTON: Clinton strongest one there is!

That pretty much says it all: an inept President and majority party quickly losing the support of the nation, with the alernative being an inept opposition party who’s party leaders are following the “us too, but better!” strategy. Freaking brilliant.

Share This

I was on wikiquote, browsing some cool stuff, when I decided, impulsively, to look up W’s quotes. Bad idea. The amount of bullshit and idiocy coming out of this man’s mouth is unbelievable. Just scroll down to start the year-by-year quotes. You’ll see what I mean. Just… gah.

Share This

And no, I’m not talking about conservatives. Yes I know, *gasp* and all that. But there are those things called integrity and honesty and fair play that are needed for me to respect you, not simply what you believe. That’s why these moonbats need to be grabbed by the shoulders, shaken, and told “Why in God’s name are you doing this?! Don’t you realize you’re making the rest of the animal rights movement look crazy?! Stop it, I’m sick of being associated with you!!” But PZ Myers, always one for humor, makes this snarky remark:

Nothing will compel me to give up my fish: I will continue to keep them in clean tanks with lots of tasty food, forcing them to fornicate every day.

How dare he give those fish clean conditions to live and make them have sex! That is animal cruelty if I’ve ever heard it!

Share This

Bushflash highlights something very important:

One statement, before I depart: The latest smear against Cindy, from the neocon right, is that we on the left are “idolizing” Cindy Sheehan.

Okay- listen up, neocons:

When you were clamoring for this war, we took to the streets in our millions, worldwide, to make our voices heard. No one listened to us.

When you declared “Mission Accomplished”, we stood in vigils, worldwide, for the American and Iraqi dead, and for those who were certain to die, in the coming years. No one listened to us.

When billions of tax dollars, and thousands of lives were squandered, we organized, marched, petitioned, and tried to help people understand what was going on. No one listened.

When the american death toll passed 1,000, and the Iraqi civilian death toll wended its way towards 100,000, you guys kept repeating the Rove talking point that “Deaths mean progress”. We continued to warn the american people of what certainly lay before us. No one listened to us.

When we again took to the streets in March, 2004, in our millions, no one listened to us.

When Bush was “re-elected”, and the second assault on Fallujah commenced, we tried to raise alarms about what was certain to ensue. No one listened to us.

When Bush made his sick jokes about WMDs, and showed his true lack of moral character- no one listened to us.

When we yet again took to the streets in March, 2005, in our millions, no one listened to us.

They listened to YOU- when you dipped your fingers in dye, to show your support for a sham election, in a nation in which the need for food, clean water, and electricity is still a matter of life or death. They listened to YOU, when you kept referring to the Iraqi dead as “collateral damage”, when pictures of maimed and shredded children came to us, from Iraq. They listened to YOU, joking about “college pranks”, when images from Abu Ghraib inflamed the disgust of the civilized world.

Now- your lies have run their course. We’ve wasted 300 billion dollars, extinguished thousands upon thousands of Iraqi and American lives, and FINALLY, NOW- after all of the death, loss, and lies…

The corporate media is listening to us, because one lone woman chose to pitch her tent outside of Bush’s Ranch, and is demanding answers to the questions that we’ve all been asking, for over two years.

The critics are fast to criticize the messenger, in a vain hope to discredit the message. In the past week, the neocon right has done everything to defame Cindy, and have wound up with a generous serving of eggs on their collective faces. Concurrent with this hail of conservative vitriol upon the founder of Camp Casey, the movement it has come to represent, continues to grow.

The anti-war movement has never been about Cindy- it’s about us- all of us- even you republicans out there. When the son or daughter of a republican parent dies in the sands of Iraq- we mourn their death, not as a result of our political agenda, but because we hate seeing people die for a lie. The injustice of this war isn’t a right or left issue- it’s a HUMAN issue. [emphasis mine]

He’s exactly right. This isn’t [just] about Cindy; it’s not even [just] about her son; and it’s certainly NOT about those armchair warriors, those warmongering pundits who denounce the patriotism of those who are fighting, suffering, and dying in their war. No: this is about each and every person, family, and community in America; this is about each and every person, family, and community in Iraq; this is about all those suffering physical wounds because of this conflict; this is about all those who have suffered psychological trauma witnessing some of the horrors of this war; this is about all those who worry constantly about their husbands, wives, sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, cousins, and friends “over there”; this is about the grieving thousands who were right to worry and have lost something irreplacabe: a loved one; and most importantly this is about the hundreds of thousands, be they American, Iraqi, or any other nationality, who have lost their lives in this conflict. We mourn for all of you. This is about you.

Share This

You may remember my post about why I was definitely against the pro-life movement even though the question of abortion is a complicated one. My reasoning was that the movement also stands for so many other very radical positions that supporting them would be a travesty. We can now add one more thing the pro-life movement opposes: divorce.

Rep. John Hostettler told area clergy that divorce on demand is as dangerous as gay marriage, and pastors’ actions will be key to strengthening all Indiana families.

[…]

“The picture of marriage is the picture of Christian salvation,” said Hostettler, who describes his elected office as a ministry. “Any diminishing of that notion - whether homosexual marriage or any other degradation of marriage - is something we must fight in public policy.”

Still support these nutcases?

Share This

Wake up the echos cheering her name
Send a volley cheer on high
Shake down the thunder from the sky!
Though the odds be great or small
Old Notre Dame will win over all
While her loyal SONS are marching
Onward to victory!

Yeah, I’m at college. My first class is in 8 hours. Wish me luck!

Share This

You really should read the whole entry, but this little excerpt all by itself is really absolutely brilliant.

“Christopher Flickinger is a conservative columnist from Pittsburgh, PA (or as he likes to call it, “The People’s Republic of Pittsburgh: a cesspool of unionized liberalism”). He is co-founder and President of the Center For Conservative Thought. Mr. Flickinger’s columns can be found periodically at Human Events Online, The Rant, and other websites that hold lifetime memberships to the “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Although his columns are usually mild-mannered and anything but blunt, this six-foot-two, two-hundred and twenty pound Goliath doesn’t back down from liberal instigators, and he’s just waiting for a left-winger to throw a pie in his direction.”

So he’s a giant who likes pie. That’s sufficient qualifications for a conservative to claim he’s expert in everything! Perhaps I should fear him, and maybe send a few pies to him as an act of appeasement. Or perhaps I should ask him to debate pies with Fafblog.

At least I should be safe from the unstoppable pygmies + dwarfs argument.

Hilarious. Absolutely hilarious.

Share This