Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Time to Find Their Heads

Just a while ago on Fox TV, there was yet another of those interviews with "representatives of the Rapper Community." The rappers tried to explain to the pompous Fox dude with the good hair (I don't remember his name, but it they're so interchangeable it scarcely matters) that in their community, they have been discussing rap lyrics for a long time. He said twenty years, and he would know that better than either I or Good Hair Dude would.

What the hell is up with the chattering class on the Right? Are they really after the truth, or do they just want the chance to bag on people of color (as they do on gays) every chance they get?

Rappers, and those who listen to rap, have been carrying on a very long argument about the content of rap and hip-hop lyrics. They're well aware there's a problem, and they have been for decades. Okay? So bully for Fox, and all the other Right-Wing babblers, for having (so very belatedly) discovered the issue.

What's total bullshit is the way they insist upon acting as if they were the very first to think of it. When the rappers on Fox today tried to tell Good Hair Dude how long it has, in fact, been a concern, the segment -- quite conveniently -- came to an end.

The Right needs to be saved from the bigoted, ignoramus, pompous jerks who have taken control of it. When gay, white men like Andrew Sullivan try to define conservatism on intelligent terms, the Right-Wing jerks claim that he's not credible simply because he's gay. While Left-Wing jerks claim he just wants the door to privilege opened a crack wider so he, as a GAY white man, can squeeze in.

Of course the Right is wrong about more than simply gay rights. It simply is not credible to claim that it's right about absolutely everything else. We need to see what currently passes for conservatism and tell the brutal truth about what's wrong with it.

Sullivan is doing that. He's making a good case for a conservatism that brings together the very best of our heritage as Americans: that which is conservative and that which is classically liberal. I don't agree with his conservatism, but it's certainly a lot more credible -- and constructive -- than a lot of what else currently passes for it. If he were to appear on Good Hair Dude's Fox program, before he could get his point across, the segment would surely be brought to an end.


Sunday, April 22, 2007

Sweet Little Me

Well, I guess I should forego eating or drinking anything in public unless I'm wearing a full-body bib. I had a caramel frappuccino at Starbuck's, and now I'm liberally festooned with caramel and whipped cream.

I wish that were as kinky as it sounds.

Maybe when I write a potentially-controversial post on this Blog, or a comment of that sort on someone else's, I should begin by telling everyone I'm covered with caramel and whipped cream.

Would I, perchance, sound sweeter then? More fun, perhaps? Would it be a good way to pick up women?

One of my best friends, a straight man, used to call us and bless our answering-machine with messages like this:

"I'm totally nude and covered with whipped cream, hot fudge and spanish nuts!"

Now, certain people (my mother, for instance) thought that he WAS nuts. My roommate at the time, who eventually married her preacher, was probably afraid to bring her friends over lest he would choose to call then. When I came out as a lesbian, one of the first things several of my friends asked was "then why did you let him leave that sort of smut on your answering-machine for so long?"

Hell, I think that EVERYBODY ought to spend some time totally nude and covered with edible goodies. Maybe it would put this country in a happier mood.


Wednesday, April 18, 2007

"Turn the Other Cheek -- You F--ing Idiot!"

Over at one of my favorite blogs, The Queen of All Evil, there is yet another dustup over gun control. I made too much sense to suit somebody (bruised his vanity, in actuality), so -- though only moments ago, he had been lecturing me about Jesus' admonition to "turn the other cheek" -- he called me "a fucking idiot." He also told me, basically, that the death threats I have received, because of my stand as a gay Christian, are perfectly understandable. That I really do deserve it, after all.

Here, my friends, is the attitude of Mr. Cho, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Timothy McVeigh and Mohammed Atta. It is identical to that of the "Reverend" Fred Phelps. These are the people who think somebody died and made them God, therefore their own, fragile, infantile little egos are sooooo important that anyone who transgresses upon them deserves to die.

This individual, however, is a liberal. How do we know that? Why, because he believes in the forcible, State-instituted disarmament of all law-abiding citizens. (Those evil, floating guns from outer space, don't you know?) Therefore, I am supposed to believe I can trust this clown, and others of his ilk, in their sterling, Christ-like moral judgment. Not only am I supposed to let those with this sort of judgment lecture me about what Jesus meant in what He said in the Gospels, but I am very literally supposed to trust it with my life.

Sorry. Thanks, but no thanks.

Might I put forward the possibility that it is just this sort of moral befuddlement -- this insane inability to distinguish between right and wrong -- that is the very reason so many loose cannons are running around out there, gunning for the innocent? Might I further put forward that this is the very reason WE DON'T DAMN DARE LET OURSELVES BE DISARMED?

Just a thought. If I make too much sense for you, and it bruises your little, Mama's Boy vanity, then I suppose it ought to come to no big surprise what you'll want to do about it. Just keep in mind that this weekend, I'm going out shooting with the new, local chapter of the Pink Pistols.

Armed gays don't get bashed. And I'll be ready for you.

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Evil Guns From Outer Space....Aaaaaagggghhh!

Another senseless, heinous shooting crime -- another round of hysterical hand-wringing over "all those guns out there." I wish I could simply dismiss it all with a "Ho-hum" of boredom, but I can't afford to.

This is one of the reasons I wonder if I truly can call myself a liberal at all anymore. I don't recognize the "logic" of most of those who call themselves liberals today as any sort of logic at all.

How are we going to get criminals to give up their guns, simply by banning law-abiding people from having them? No gun-grabber has EVER been able to answer that question for me.

I am getting sick and tired of condescending lectures from people who think they're oh-so-superior because they don't own guns. There is a hell of a lot of truth in the adage that "a liberal is a conservative who has never been mugged." Or raped, carjacked or home-invaded. Or robbed of a loved one because of a violent crime.

This is a POSE, people. It is strutting, posturing and pretty preening. And it is especially disgusting when it comes from heterosexual men who would lecture me on how Cro-Magnon I am to insist on having a gun to protect myself. What a bunch of cheese-eating, cowardly fools!

How much of modern liberalism has any connection, whatsoever, to reality? And how much is like some of those commenters at Pandagon, who feel morally superior to recovering alcoholics who have chosen not to become vegetarians because staying sober, day-to-day, provides them with all the challenge they can handle?

No real progressive is that smugly judgmental toward others. No real liberal is, either.

Two perfectly good words have been hijacked by the modern (or should I say "postmodern"), statist Left. They didn't even need a single gun to do it. No wonder they think nobody else needs a gun, either.

"We'll conquer you. And we'll do it without firing a shot."

-- Quick trivia question, people. What noted liberal said that?

Monday, April 16, 2007

Only Victims Need Apply

It seems the Left only likes you when you're a victim. Why is that?

If gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Christians start attending churches that don't know quite where they stand on the issue of gay inclusion, is that too boring for the taste of our "activists?" Is changing hearts and minds one individual at a time by quietly living a good, solid Christian life -- instead of having endless marches and candlelight vigils in the most hostile territory possible and getting our heads bashed in -- simply not exciting enough?

Granted, it isn't regarded by the MSM as nearly as exciting -- as "newsworthy." And it doesn't make us feel quite so heroic.

There's so much bitterness out there from gays who have abandoned the Christian faith. They seem to think that all straight Christians are bigoted monsters. If all they hear about, in the news, are the grand protests and the policemen and the arrests, then no wonder they feel that way.

But we are the pets of the Left (both political and religious). It seems good to them to see us as victims -- always victims, and nothing else. After all, if we're victims, then (A) the Right can be portrayed as one-dimensionally evil and (B) those on the Left can promote themselves as valiant heroes in a titanic battle.

It seems we need our Leftist benefactors to save us from everything.

The same principle applies to the violent crimes that keep popping up in the news, like poison mushrooms after a rainstorm.

We must keep all law-abiding citizens unarmed, so the heroic Leftists can rescue us from guns. Guns are portrayed as these hideous, horror-movie objects that just sort of float around, shooting people at random without anybody attached to them. Perhaps the anti-gun crowd believes that guns possess some special, evil magic that casts a spell on anybody who touches one -- turning people into senseless killers by mere contact alone.

Well I, for one, am tired of being a victim. I'm tired of being kept as helpless as possible just so my self-appointed champions can save me.

Boys and girls, the game is all about power. If we ever doubted that, all we have to do is look at the slavish devotion we're still expected to shower on the Democratic Party. These jokers haven't done anything to make good on the promises they make to us. We're just supposed to go on endlessly trusting them to champion our causes.

We are assured that someday...when enough Democrats have been elected to high office...the sun will rise, the birdies will sing in harmony and all our needs will at last be met. But notice that before any of these good things can happen, we must GIVE THE BASTARDS MORE POWER.

It's quite clearly about power for power's sake, and nothing else. The libertarians have been telling us that for ages. Well, guess what: they're right.


Sunday, April 15, 2007

When I'm Calling Yo-ooooo-ooou!

Well, my wanderings in the political wilderness continue. Some may charge me with wishy-washiness. But I have no difficulty figuring out where I stand -- and never have. My problem is figuring out just where I fit.

After several months of trying out the Democrats again, I realize that the Libertarian Party is calling me. Calling me, I guess I can at last say, home.

I still have the same difficulties with the Libs I mentioned on this Blog. They don't have enough women in the party, and some of the guys who run things are assholes who don't know how to listen. But that doesn't change the fact that if I'm not myself a Libertarian, there's only one less woman in the party. How that could be considered a good thing, I don't know.

My concerns about the Libertarian vision still remain. But as a member of the party, I am in a far better position to help steer it in the right direction than I ever could be as a Democrat. And the Democratic party SUCKS A BIG ONE. There is no way around that.

Good night nurse, the Democratic Party sucks! I never saw such a bunch of whiners, cowards, crybabies and shameless, unprincipled opportunists in my life. For a brief, shining moment in November of '06, I had some hope that things might get better -- after all, we gave these clowns a sharp and clear mandate to lead. We practically gave them a kick in the pants to get them to lead.

They need a lot more than a kick in the pants. They need the boot of every American clear up their collective ass. And in addition to refusing to lead us out of the mess in Iraq, they have cut and run on gay rights.

Let me put the recent remarks of Garrison Keillor and Roseanne Barr in some perspective. They are mouthing the current party line. Gays are now the scapegoats for everything wrong in the party, and we're being thrown under the bus. Our "leaders" are still as hypersensitive as ever about what celebrities say, but they seem to be totally without a clue as to why these people are saying these things. Folks, it is only the new party line!

Democrats think they've got us in their hip pocket. They think we can't go anywhere else, because anywhere else it's worse. But the Republicans -- pathetic as they are -- have nowhere to go but up on social issues. Their party simply won't survive if they keep on pandering to the bigots. The Greens are off in la-la land somewhere (sorry, I checked into that party, and they are still stuck in the Sixties). That leaves the Libertarians -- as flawed as they are in some ways.

Yes, there are nuts in the Libertarian Party. Unfortunately, you can't keep nuts from joining your party, or from running for office under your party's banner. At least, according to Libertarian principle, the nuts can't force their nutty notions on the rest of us.

As for social darwinism -- a charge many lob at the Libertarians and of which I myself have worried they may be guilty -- I can't accept it. If I became convinced it was a necessary feature of libertarianism (small or capital L), I would, as a Christian, find myself fundamentally at odds with it. But as a Libertarian friend recently pointed out to me, the society they want does not HAVE to be one based on social darwinism. It is still up to the people in that society to determine how it will function -- but if it's libertarian, this will simply be done without resorting to brute force.

I can certainly accept that. I appreciate being reminded of it. I will do my utmost never to forget it again.

Libertarian principle. This is a party that HAS principle! In and of itself, that is such a breath of fresh air. Especially in this day and age.


Friday, April 13, 2007

Hurricane Imus -- A Little Perspective, Please!

People on both sides of the Right/Left divide seem unable to stop babbling about the whole Don Imus thing. And as usual when a brouhaha of this sort blows up, sane and reasonable people are invited to keep quiet. Well, I'm not gonna.

From the Right, there is a minimization of what Imus did, along with a fixation on how "overboard" the Left has gone with this. From the Left, there is hysteria.

Let's not minimize what happened. A sixty-six-year-old man publically called college girls whores. Forget, for just a minute, the respective races of the people involved. If this clown called my daughters whores, I'd be moving furniture to get at him.

Has the whole thing been overblown? Of course it has. But I hear a lot of noise from so-called conservatives about how supposedly harmless it is that a man in late middle age could slander young ladies like that and get away with it. Along with an attempt to subliminally link these young ladies with the "exotic dancer" who falsely accused the Duke lacrosse players of rape.

If you've been guilty of this, then shame on you. I'm ashamed of you, if you lack the sense or decency to be ashamed of yourselves.

Never, ever again do I want to hear these phoney-baloney "conservatives" pine for the good ol' days when civility reigned in public discourse. A sixty-six-year-old fool called college girls whores. Next question?

Now, has the Left overblown it? Whenever Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton jump into anything, you know that's gonna happen. We don't seem to be able to stop it from happening. Perhaps, instead of chattering on about it, endlessly, we should simply point out that Jackson and Sharpton are publicity-mongering opportunists and laugh them off. Point and laugh -- a good strategy for fools who want to be taken seriously but shouldn't.

It is childish to respond to childishness with more of the same. Your kindergarten teacher used to tell you that. Maybe you should have listened to her.

Let me explain what Imus was really doing. He was bagging on womens' basketball. It had nothing to do with race, really. For guys in crisis about their own masculinity, any stick is good enough to beat women athletes with. Most of the Rutgers players happen to be black, so out of his motorized mouth popped some stuff and nonsense about "nappy-headed ho's." Had the players been white, he'd have made fun of their height, the fact that most of them don't look like fashion models, or whatever other lame-ass reason he could glom onto.

Because we have ignored what was really going on, it will continue to happen. Unless those of us who are, in particular, fans of womens' sports begin to stand up and call this crap out, it will continue to happen. The Rutgers basketball team deserves a lot of credit for having fought their way to the NCAA womens' finals. They had to beat a lot of great teams (including my own Arizona State Lady Sun Devils) to get there. And NOBODY can take that away from them.

Imus should not have been fired. Now they've made a martyr out of him. I can't think of very many people who deserve it less.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

I Guess I'm Not A "Real" Progressive!

Recently at Pandagon, there was yet another silly tiff about the politically-correct definition of a "real" progressive. The question was: can a "real" progressive eat meat? And the answer (not surprisingly) turned out to be no.

Oh, there were plenty of people commenting who THOUGHT they could be real progressives without giving up meat. It was a very heated and contentious post, indeed. And it certainly didn't seem to be the official position of the blog that carnivores failed to qualify as real progressives. But the post generated a lot of heat and very little light.

Unrepentant carnivore that I am, I of course weighed in with the opinion that whether or not a person eats meat has nothing to do with their progressivism or lack thereof. Several people agreed, but a few shouted, booed and hissed us down. One idiot in particular huffily informed me that I did not have "the moral high ground" on the issue.

Earlier in the thread, I had taken pains to explain that I am a recovering alcoholic, and that therefore I find it enough of a challenge to keep sober every day. While I admire vegetarians who refuse to eat meat on principle (vegans being another matter entirely, as the position that eating honey because it exploits the poor little bees is too ridiculous to humor), I do not find it necessary to be join their number.

What was the enlightened "progressive" response to this? That I was being oversensitive. One pimply-faced, twentysomething smartass asked me who'd "peed in my Wheaties." I might have embarrassed a few people when I reminded them I'd mentioned my reason for not being interested in vegetarianism. Then again, I rather doubt it; zealots seem to have no sense of shame.

Funny, I've always considered myself to be progressive. I always thought it had something to do with principle: a belief in societal progress. Silly me! It's actually all about following dimwit, pharasaical rules. Kinda like the fundamentalism of the Religious Right this crowd so vehemently professes to abhor.

I'm too liberal to suit the conservatives, and too conservative to suit the liberals. Woe is me!

My views used to be considered those of a thoughtful, reasonable person. Nowadays, they're considered extreme by both entrenched and societally-accepted "sides." And we wonder why the rest of the civilized world regards American politics as insane.