Hate. Filled. Heart.

(h/t to [redacted]. I don't have a facebook account.)

Apparently, the new Catholic answer to the overwhelming evidence of decades (if not centuries) of abuse, the abuse of hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent children, covered up as an institutional imperative, to the point where one can only assume that the leadership of the RCC came to the rather odd conclusion that the organization exists purely to pander to pedophiles is . . . man, that was some sentence . . . seriously, that was alliterative there at the end . . . the abuse is all made up by the Gay Agenda^tm . to punish the Church for supporting Prop 8.

Yes, that's right. Priests didn't sexually molest an entire generation of Catholic children, and religious leaders of every description don't regularly abuse their authority and their followers, it's just those dirty gays and their stranglehold on our culture. The hierarchy of the Church didn't do everything possible to keep those priests from facing repercussions, it's just the Gay Agenda^tm again.

Man, when your religious beliefs require that you view hundreds of victims of childhood sexual abuse as shills for a nonexistent agenda, you are officially fucked. You have no morals. You have no soul. You're a shell, spewing nonsense from your hate filled heart.

Good luck with that.

[name removed because i'm the better person] I believe that Bishop Eddie Long is being falsely accused of sexual abuse because of his strong public objection of the homosexual lifestyle. Let's not judge him. We don't know what proof will be given. Instead, lets pray for justice for the Bishop. I believe this to be just another attack against the children of God who speak out against evil in the world.

20 hours ago · View Feedback (5) Hide Feedback (5) · Flag

• [another asshat] likes this.

·

[conspiracy theorist] You know, it's really interesting that you mention that, because a FB friend of mine who is strongly pro-homosexual (and also admits to being a homosexual) posted a link "proving" that Bishop Long actually committed sexual abuse. That's a really good point you make there!

6 hours ago

• 
  

[asshat] You know...that they are attacking him and accusing him of this tends to lend credence to the fact that their organizations using the Catholic name ARE indeed as fake as the Bishop reported.

5 hours ago

[original name removed. i'm still the better person] Rennie, I sure hope your fb friend got his link "proving" that Bishop Long is guilty of committing sexual abuse from reliable resources. If he is guilty then he needs to pay the price . A man is considered innocent until proven guilty but I would'nt go around accusing when I know that every word that comes out of my mouth will be judged by God.

4 hours ago

• 
  

[yet another asshat] I don't remember where he got the link, but the same source that provided the "proof" also provided a news story a few months ago reporting that a high school here in Mississippi was unfair for not allowing a lesbian girl to bring her girlfriend to the prom. That much I DO remember.

You know, I have to wonder something. If one of their children came home and said that the priest molested them, would they say, "Oh, honey, stop lying for the Gay Agenda^tm."? I think not.

Also, some research shows that

More than 100 reports in the scientific and professional literature, involving more than 35,000

subjects, indicate that rapists, child molesters, incestuous parents, and sexually motivated

murderers are typically very conservative in their sexual and social values and sometimes more

religious than average—suggesting that in many cases traditional sexual morality is a

contributing factor in sexual abuse rather than a deterrent.

Yeah. It's not the Gay Agenda^tm, it's your agenda, asshats.

Get Off My Lawn

tanner, liberal, agenda, gran torino, gay
James Tanner, at Comments on the Contemporary, makes me laugh. When he's not exposing the Gay Agenda(tm), his posts can all be summed up one way: Get off my lawn!* He's that stereotypical, grumpy old man from every bad sitcom you've ever seen- with a blog! It's awesome!

This week, Mr. Tanner exposes yet another victim of the Liberal Agenda: geography.

By the time I went through grammar school (now a misnomer) and high school, they (the radical liberals) had managed to eliminate geography as a subject . . .

Absolutely priceless.

Previously, I greatly enjoyed a screed against those young people and their internets:

I do know younger adults who are computer professionals. They have on the job experience with networks and Internet connections. They can set up a computer and connect it to a network, but often don't know what to do with it past Facebook and or MySpace.

We should let grandpa get to his nap now, kids.



*and I don't mean that in a cool, Gran Torino kind of way, either.

Red is Shockingly Popular at Valentine's Day

red, communism, socialism, obama, agenda, plot, rapture, stupid
Apparently, the fact that red is (or maybe isn't, I don't know) a popular color right now means we are all going to be socialists soon. (That was communists, for those of you keeping track, but whatever.)

(1) Red is always very popular at Valentine's Day (at least in the US. Readers from other countries, feel free to chime in.)

(2) I love red. I look fabulous in red. Therefore, I decorate and wear as much red as possible. AAAHHHH . . . I must be Stalin!

From the ever popular Rapture Ready message boards:

Sundial begins the silliness with: Lately I've noticed several products marketed with an emphasis on the color red--cell phones have one in red, Dell computer totally want one in red, the youth brigade jackets huh?, a larger percentage of red in the new Pepsi logo pepsi is teh evul--these are just a few products. I did a search on the Pantone website, the world's authority on color trends for the seasons, and there is NO red listed for spring. wow! they missed one. they're not psychics, guys.This is no coincidence. it's teh evul! Our current administration is implementing a a very subtle means of marketing their socialistic agenda. obama controls what colors cell phones and computers come in? either i'm very lucky or that's insane. In a matter of time, we will see red as the primary color choice in our products. all products will be red. and nobody will think to distinguish themselves by choosing blue. yeah. Perhaps we will be known as the "red shirts". like commies!

EndisNear posts a picture of the traditional USSR hammer and sickle (symbol in yellow over a red background): I wonder if we'll be seeing yellow, too. i hope not. i look like i have liver failure in yellow.

jb777 totally accepts the idea that Obama controls our color preferences: I plan to adopt or wear any color I take a mind to....heck with them and their stupid socialist agenda.

wally was apparently channelling me (which would explain that rather awkward blackout yesterday): Colorful fiends! That's why they painted all thoses fire trucks red.To draw all young children deep into their communist clutches!I am soooo glad we have yellow fire trucks......Now why did the utility companies eliminate safety yellow from their vehicles and replace it with white? HmmmmSo the prolotariate would surrender? Yes ! Its all a color plot!Quick form a defense around Crayola! We need more colors!Sounds like diversity training...... wait a minuet.....

just when i think these people can't get any more nuts . . .

On Haggard, Lohan and the Price of Pretending

pretend, gay, homophobia, homosexual, agenda, conservative, prop 8, marriage, haggard, hate, lohan, gender

You know, for years I pretended to be someone I wasn't. (I was reading Rise and Fall of the Third Reich at age 12; normal is not a word that can be applied to me.) I pretended my way through high school, pretended my way through college, and continue to pretend at work.

Why? Well, for all the reasons anyone pretends: to make life easier (work pretend), because I thought it was wrong to be me (reactions people had to me being me), because I thought I would be happy if I weren't me (see: the media), lessons I internalized at home (want a good look at my father? read something by pearlyboo [happy, dearheart?], the condescension, it burns!).

Admittedly, everything about me isn't flowers and sunshine. Some things I have worked on; some things I have learned to accept; some things I flaunt, because, in the end, I'm the only person I can be.

Learning to be me was a painful process, but it gave me peace and wonderful gifts: my hubby, my friends ([censored] and my pagan sister wouldn't have happened if I were still pretending), and my own self respect. That last one is the gift that keeps on giving- and no one else can give it to you. There is almost limitless wisdom in the adage that no one will love you, and you can't love anyone, until you love yourself.

So, how does this relate to Ted Haggard and Lindsey Lohan? They are two excellent examples of people who hurt themselves, and everyone around them, by pretending to be something they are not- in both these cases, straight.

I admit, I got all judgey about the Lohan. (Mostly because my niece used to idolize Lohan, and that led to very uncomfortable discussions about why her idol drank to excess and did drugs. It led to nice discussion about how being rich and famous only makes you rich and famous, not happy, but still.) When I found out that Lohan is a lesbian, however, it all made sense. Being a gay Disney star must be hard. Really hard. Drown your sorrows hard. Which is sad, because it was much easier to explain Lohan being gay than trying to explain addiction to a 7 year old.

"She likes to kiss girls?"
"Yup."
"She doesn't want to kiss boys?"
"Apparently not."
"Why?"
"Some people are like that."
"Oh. You want to play Sorry?" (7 year olds don't really care more than 2" in front of their own faces.)

Ted Haggard is more complicated. He was a preacher, the leader of a congregation. He has a wife and children. He hurt a lot more people with his lies, some of them complete innocents who will forever be scarred by his deception. But, I feel tremendous sympathy for him, because if he lived in a society where gay was okay, he would not have felt the need to pretend to be straight, to marry, to father children, to use meth, to hire hookers.

How desperate must Haggard have been? What level of self-loathing do you have to reach to do those things? How much must you fear the truth to think that meth and hookers are better than honesty?

The best part is, the Prop 8 crowd regularly recommends this to gays: stop being childish and selfish and stupid, get with the program, marry a member of the opposite sex, have children and drag everyone into a life of pretend. Why does that seem like a good idea to anyone?

Try to imagine the opposite, if you will, and you happen to be straight. (It's okay, pearlyboo, the gay panic subsides after a moment.) Imagine spending your entire life pretending to be gay. Imagine only having sex with members of your own gender. Imagine hiding, even from yourself, your attraction to members of the opposite sex. Imagine being terrified, every moment of the day, that someone will figure out that you are straight.

I have only felt the tiniest portion of that in my life of pretend. After all, I was only afraid that people wouldn't like me, not that I would lose my job or be publicly humiliated or assaulted or murdered. And my experience led me to places of despair.

So, in conclusion, stop shaming yourself for being you, and stop shaming others for being them. Life's better all around that way.

(and let the tolerance bashing begin . . . but think about the children!)

Believers = Name Callers

homophobia, prop 8, religion, christian, evangelical, evangelism, evil, stupid, conservative, agenda, bigotry,

Okay, so as hard as it may be to believe, thejournalistachronicle has made the argument that being a believer is synonymous with name calling and other such bad behavior.

Seriously.

Yes, I know, that's normally my line, but, well, here it is.

Backing up a little bit, I understand that your bronze age collection of stories from nomadic tribesman tells you that Teh Gay is Teh Evul. Fine. I'll even cede the point for the purposes of this paragraph, and this paragraph alone. (Possibly the next one as well, purely for the purposes of readability.) You just have to rail against Teh Evul Gayz. Is it too much to ask that you use essentially neutral language when you do so? "Homosexual", for example, is simply a term describing a person who is sexually attracted to members of their own sex. That's it. Everyone knows what homosexual means, so there's no confusion, and it is a neutral word, allowing you to spew your hatred in the least hateful manner.

Is that such a bad thing? Is it absolutely necessary to abandon good taste and common decency and politeness to make your point? What would Jesus do?

Wow. . .the more research I do, the scarier the public school system seems to get. it's not the guns and school shootings and gangs and drugs that scare journalista, mind you, it's not calling gays any vile word she can think of. For the love of all that I don't find holy, please home school your children, journalista. Keep them away from my nieces and nephews. Gold stars for all parents who home school their kids, or who can afford a Christian private school and make spending money on tuition a priority. poor people are poor because they're immoral and they deserve to be. In conjunction with the tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality in schools we no longer allow the other students to beat them up. well, most of the time. comes the attack on Christianity and all conservative values that's right, cause calling gays "fags, etc." is a christian value. Thank you! i've always thought so., and thus the students who fall into those categories. The GLBT community always tries to blame their problems on us, the conservative Christians. no, they just want you to keep your religion away from our democracy. theocracy sucks! you're more than welcome to worship without pushing it on the rest of us. in fact, jesus made that a command.

Matt 6:5-6 And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.

But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Well, sorry gang, give it up, it’s not going to fly. Actions have consequences and you’re not going to make the rest of society responsible for your perverted, irresponsible, and self-inflicted life anguish. That’s all on you.

Wow. Usually the DNA crowd pretends to be polite. "Love the sinner, not the sin" they say over and over again. The true will out, I guess. I'm surprised she didn't go straight for "fag" and get it over with.

An upcoming “No Name-Calling” campaign for public schools yeah, cause we don't want to stop name calling, we want more of it! who doesn't miss the days of yore when you could call a n**ger a n**gger and a fag a fag? me, for one., sponsored by none other then a homosexual activist organization,

full stop. what organization is this? you can't even give me a name? you're just going to call it a homosexual activist organization and not even let me check this? hmmm . . . I wonder why . . .

No Name-Calling Week is a product of GLSEN (yes, it is a homosexual activist organization)and Simon & Schuster Children’s Publishing, in collaboration with more than 40 national education organizations. Simon & Schuster is a homosexual activist organization? Since when? Do these people in the DNA even care about the truth?

is prompting concerns from a Christian group, which contends the effort promotes hate, not tolerance. let's see what ridiculous attempt at logic now follows.
“Is respect for Christians part of these ‘no-naming-calling’ lessons?” asked Linda Harvey (want to know where that link goes? "Mission American" linked to racist propaganda. I guess one hate is as good as another.), head of Mission America online donations now accepted!.

respect for christians? seriously? because christians are the minority . . . uh, no. because christians are frequently called vile names . . . no. because christians are frequently harassed due to their distinctive speech/clothing/styles . . . no. because christians fear admitting they are christians . . . no. because christians aren't allowed to marry other christians . . . no. because christians are afraid to go to certain restaurants or clubs because if someone realizes they are christian, they face violence or even being killed . . .no.

look, give it up. you are not persecuted. being forced to live in a world with people different from you is not persecution. not being allowed to say hateful, vile, bigoted things whenever and wherever you want is not persecution. it's common decency. get some.

“Or does this effort in reality create more division by labeling and stereotyping objections to homosexuality?” the goal of this venture is to stop children from calling on another vile names. unless you think "n**ger" is an acceptable word for a black child, this is a good thing.

You won’t be surprised what other organizations are sponsoring this program: Anti-Defamation League libruls, Educators for Social Responsibility libruls, the National Education Association libruls and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America libruls who give birth control and pap smears to poor women! the nerve!. With this ‘no-name-calling’ campaign comes the attempt of GLBT groups to promote their agenda, seek preferential treatment and disrespect Christians. how is it preferential treatment to ask others to use polite words? and, apparently, it is disrespectful to ask christians to use polite language. unless we allow christians to use vile, hateful, bigoted speech, we're persecuting them. nice.Just like I said in my post yesterday about tolerance training i'd go back and read it, but my blood pressure is high enough, shouldn’t no-name-calling be a blanket thing, referring to any type of name-calling yeah, actually it is. have you seen the campaign? it's not only about GLBTs. wow, actual research. is asking christians to do research persecution, too? not being tolerated on any front, rather then a sneaky way to promote of the homosexual lifestyle?

According to the no name calling week website, the inspiration for the idea comes from the a book called “The Misfits,” by James Howe about 5 junior high girls, all different, are taunted, one who’s taunted based on her sexual orientation/gender expression. apparently, journalista can't even be bothered to read what she has written. this whole article is all about how no name-calling week is all about the "gay agenda", but she herself types that IT'S NOT. HELLO?! IS ANYONE HOME?!

The website claims it wants to focus national attention on the problem of name-calling in school, and that’s nice and all, but don’t be fooled–what they are really trying to bring attention to is how much they think GLBT people are discriminated against, and how everyone should think being gay or whatever is so great and wonderful. Ick. . that's right. we wouldn't want those little fuckpacking fags to think for a second that they are as good as the rest of us, now would we? we need to keep those little fairy queers in their place, now don't we? do you not get how vile and hateful and disgusting this is, journalista?

frankly, reading this article is making me feel dirty, which even for journalista is reaching a new low, but I do have to share this with you:

That’s the kicker right there. Harvey hits the nail on the head with that statement. The programs do assume, in fact more realistically comma force students to think that homosexuality is ok and worthy of respect and defense.no, they simply instruct children not to call each other vile, hateful names. that's it. now, i suppose it is awfully hard to teach your children to hate effectively if they refuse to call their classmates fags and queers, but that's your problem, journalista. Homosexuality is not harmless!!!!! yes, that is indeed 5 exclamation points. if you're going to be disgustingly prejudiced, journalista, at least remain within the bounds of accepted punctuation. I am so disturbed by the lack of compassion exhibited by the GLBT community for the rest of America. seriously? they're being discriminated against, and they're supposed to feel sorry for the oppressors, why? should the blacks have felt guilty over the civil war, as well? Its as if they are wishing for these children, and even everyone else, to experience the kind of anxiety, turmoil, family chaos, sexual perversion and lack of self-esteem that they themselves have experienced being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered.

SHOW YOUR WORK. okay, seriously, if you want to make wild accusations that gays are anxious, in turmoil, have chaotic families and a lack of self esteem, you really need to give me some kind of proof. surely there have been peer reviewed psychological studies proving this. or do you even know what "peer reviewed" and "studies" mean?

They don’t want these children to experience the sacredness of intimacy within a loving and committed marriage really, why not?

oh, wait, i think i just got it. see christians are so concerned with converting everyone to christianity, they just naturally assume that gays want to make everyone else gay. got it.

, a real marriage between one man and one woman. real? as opposed to . . . They are trying to rob these children of one of life’s essential joys. no, they're not, get over it. None of these GLBT people can say life has been blissful and easy for them, or that they have been happy, they would be lying if they did. and you are lying if you say your life has been blissful and easy. unless you simply don't understand the meaning of the word "blissful" They are past the trying phase of agenda execution. explanation? so make no mistake they ARE promoting this life of sadness and suffering wow, alliteration! on America’s children. This is vile behavior at it’s finest! so's this article, bigot.

I'm honestly surprised the DNA is allowing this. usually they try to pull the "some of my best friends are gay" and "love the sinner, not the sin" lines. can't try that with this one.

There Is So Much Wrong With This

atheism, homophobia, homosexual, prop 8, religion, conservative, liberal, agenda,

. . . it's making my chest hurt. (Or I have pleurisy for the 4th time in 8 months. Whatever.)

First of all, Pearl ("Pearls of Wisdom", that's where she gets her name from. I can't decide whether to laugh or cry over that), HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT EVIL. You tell me, how does homosexuality affect you? Seriously.

I'm waiting. I'm calling your bluff. Prove to me that homosexuality is affecting you AT ALL, and I'll sit down and shut up. Oh, but one thing: you have to use reason, logic and science to do it. "Teh Butt Seks makes me uncomfortable" is not a reason. It's not even an excuse.

And "the bible told me so" isn't going to work, either. A collection of stories from bronze age nomadic tribesman, poorly translated a few hundred times is not relevant to this day and age. Or, if you think it is relevant, why only Teh Gayz? Do you also not eat shrimp? What about your period? When you have your period, does your husband carefully avoid sitting in chairs you have sat upon? That's in there, too. Do you stone adulterers to death? Of course not, that's ridiculous! Yeah, you totally just agreed with me.

By the way, the reason I insist on reviewing the studies you keep referencing is that I know you are not educated enough to look at (a) who paid for the study and (b) the methodology behind the study. (And that's just to start.)

An explanatory anecdote, and then we get to what really pissed me off.

Neurontin is a drug used to treat complex partial seizures. As a treatment for this type of seizure, Neurontin was a success. However, the pool of people to sell Neurontin to was limited, as complex partial seizures aren't terribly common in the population as a whole. Chronic pain, however is. 1 in 3 USians suffer from chronic pain to some degree or another. I can tell you, as a person who suffers from chronic pain, and has for the better part of a decade, that chronic pain will ruin your life. If I could remove a limb or gain 200 pounds or be visibly maimed in exchange for removing my pain, I would do it in a heartbeat. I would get down on my knees and start worshipping the sky-daddy for the opportunity.

I am not kidding.

So, the makers of Neurontin seized on the idea of marketing Neurontin for chronic pain as a way to make more money. How did they do it? Well, they had a lot of tactics, but one of them was to pay dishonest scientists to perform studies with the goal of proving that Neurontin effectively treats chronic pain. They did lots of studies, and the initial studies proved that Neurontin was no more effective than a placebo at treating chronic pain. So, they kept running more studies, changing the way they ran them, the subjects they used, the way they interpreted data, etc. until they came up with studies that proved that Neurontin effectively treats chronic pain.

Neurontin does nothing for chronic pain. Nothing at all.

My point? A study is only as good as the scientist who runs it. If the scientist goes into the study determined to prove something, paid to prove one thing and only one thing, eventually they will. Sometimes it's hard to tell what they've done, sometimes it's not. The moral of my story? Statistics don't lie, statisticians do.

So, back to what set me off.

The most important knowledge for me, coming out of this discussion of desensitization tactics it's not torture, it's enhanced interrogation!, is that the vocabulary we choose to use will either perpetuate the problem the problem remember, is gays. does she honestly believe that a certain percentage of the population will stop being gay if we stop referring to them in positive ways? or is she satisfied with the idea that returning to the days of "fag" will push them back in the closet. hey, it's okay to be gay as long as pearl doesn't have to look at you! or re-sensitize a nation good luck with that. we're not all bigoted idiots, pearl. I will no longer be using the phrase “gay ‘rights’ activists” to describe the gay liberation movement leaders i'm not sure "gay rights activists" is better than "gay liberation movement". i don't know how gays would feel about this, but i like "gay liberation".

go head, pearl, just say it. i know you want to. FAG! QUEER! BUTT PIRATE! FUDGE PACKER!

since the more accurate term is homosexual activists so "gay" is the word she is upset about? she wants to take back "gay"? good luck with that. next i suppose she'll want the mustache back. I will no longer refer to the unions sought and clamored for today as same-sex “marriage,” since marriage is and always has been used to describe one relationship and one relationship only – a union between one man and one woman. actually, in lots of cultures, marriage refers to polygamy and polyandry. how about saying "in this one country, the US of A, marriage has always referred to . . . oh, no, wait, Utah, before it was a state, allowed polygamy . . . sorry, pearl, doesn't wash. try again. I hope that all of us will make an effort to re-evaluate our language and make positive changes. "fag" is a positive change? you must be really fun at dinner parties. Just as abortion has been sold as an imperative allowance toward fostering choice… and abortion? why? we don't know. gays don't want abortions, they want marriage- oh, I'm sorry pearl, evil unholy icky alliances with THE DEVIL!

See, pearl, everyone can play this game. I refer to her and the Prop 8 crowd as "traditional marriage activists" because that's what they call themselves. (1) if i refer to them as something else, the conversation gets confusing. (2) it's called common decency. get a little, pearl, it's free. but, since we've gotten the ball rolling on calling people whatever the hell we want, i will now refer to pearl as "that gay bashing little ignorant, uneducated moron", and to pro Prop 8ers as "people who are so afraid of Teh Gay that they just can't stop thinking about it for reasons they would rather not examine". This will involve a great deal more typing on my part, but hey, let's have fun.

Oh, and Pearl, if you're looking for a new name for me, I suggest "that fucking atheist whore who won't leave me alone and who thinks I'm stupid, but I'm not! I'm really not!"

Raping Euripides

In case you're not a big fan of the ancient Greeks (makes you the wierdo), Euripides was a Greek playwright who lived in Athens in the 400s BCE. I enjoy Euripides because he portrayed strong, believable female characters (the standard then, as now, was for either shrieking shrewish villainesses or sweet, vacuous nothings) and intelligent slaves. He also enjoyed satirizing the gods.

I find it odd that this asshat would choose Euripides for his nom-du-interwebs, because (a) Euripides was obviously against bigotry, as proven by his portraying women and slaves in a positive light, and (b) Ancient Greeks really enjoyed their homosexuality. I can't decide if asshat wants to impress us with his knowledge of Ancient Greek names, or if he is unaware of the irony. (Call Alanis Morissette, she'll tell you all about it.)

So, we have the Curmudgeon Before My Time Top Ten:

10. is a rant on Hollywood and how the movies suck, blahblahblah (I've watched some very enjoyable movies lately) and then we get this bit of unintentional irony:

also activist actors who think that just because they make a gazillion more dollars than any of the rest of the world, they should express their opinions about fairness, and you have one shining example of Dumb and Dumber.

really, aren't you expressing your opinion right now? aren't I? doesn't everyone have the right to do so, and with the interwebs, the means? hey, you think nobody should be sharing their opinion, i think you should start with you.

9. Microsoft Vista. I agree.

8. Federalized Education. I'm not really sure what that means, but he seems to be raving against the No Child Left Behind Act. I agree.

7. Duplicitous Politicians. (Redundant. Once one says "politician", one need not add "duplicitous".) Oh, wait . . . And by duplicitous, I mean lying. Why yes, that is the definition of "duplicitous". Thanks. Oh, I see, he's pissed that a politician might actually fight to keep a minority's rights from being trampled by the majority will. I'm pretty sure that's the point of politicians. One recent poster child of politicians is Jerry Brown, former governor of California and now the California Attorney General. When Prop 8 passed this past year in California, he at first said he would defend the choice of the people. But on reflection, no doubt mirrored by his desire for reelection, he filed a brief with the California Supreme Court arguing that the Court should not accept the vote of the people. Because, if we allowed these things to go to majority rule, blacks might still be slaves, and women sure wouldn't be voting, but since asshat is no doubt a white male, i'm sure this wouldn't bother him at all.

6. Planned Parenthood = baby killers. Planned Parenthood gives poor women access to basic women's health services (pap smears, etc.) and to BIRTH CONTROL. If you actually want to prevent abortions, you would be interested in preventing unwanted pregnancies. If you aren't, then just admit that you want to punish poor women for being poor and women and get it over with.

5. Keanu Reeves. I like Keanu Reeves. Oh, that's right, he's bi.

4. Reality TV. The reason I rarely watch TV anymore. (No, I don't read, I play video games.)

Admire this gem:

3. The Gay Agenda. THERE.IS.NO.GAY.AGENDA. There is a liberal agenda, and whoever it is who keeps leaving it where conservatives can find it had better stop.

I know. I know. Simply everyone insists that there is no such thing as the gay agenda. yeah, cause there isn't. if you believe or see or hear a thing that nobody else in the world does, it's YOU! get some thorazine.

and now we segue into a completely unrelated story that has nothing to do with gays, agendas, or anything.

Years ago, Steve Martin starred in one of those vacuous Hollywood films I warned you about, entitled The Jerk. (I'm sorry to say that I suffered through about a half hour of it once.) oh, you poor baby! did you watch 1/2 hour of a bad movie? you should sue. The only thing remotely funny in the film was the scene with Steve Martin leaving his family and insisting he didn't need anything. For those of you spared this film, I've quoted it here:
Well I'm gonna to go then. And I don't need any of this. I don't need this stuff, and I don't need you. I don't need anything except this.[picks up an ashtray] And that's it and that's the only thing I need, is this. I don't need this or this. Just this ashtray. And this paddle game, the ashtray and the paddle game and that's all I need. And this remote control. The ashtray, the paddle game, and the remote control, and that's all I need. And these matches. The ashtray, and these matches, and the remote control and the paddle ball. And this lamp. The ashtray, this paddle game and the remote control and the lamp and that's all I need. And that's all I need too. I don't need one other thing, not one - I need this. The paddle game, and the chair, and the remote control, and the matches, for sure. And this. And that's all I need. The ashtray, the remote control, the paddle game, this magazine and the chair.

here's how asshat attempts to connect the nonexistent gay agenda to an old Steve Martin movie:

Here's the crux of the gay agenda. They insist that all they want is to be left alone. Well, to be left alone and have tax breaks. He means the same tax benefits that married people receive, which gays can't receive, because they can't marry. So, what gays want is EQUALITY. To be left alone, have tax breaks and medical privileges He just used the words "medical privileges" to describe health insurance. married people can share their health insurance with each other. gays can't, because they can't marry. Ever watch someone die because they didn't have insurance? I have. Again, what the gays want is EQUALITY. To be left alone, have tax breaks, medical privileges and be allowed to marry EQUALITY. To be left alone, have tax breaks, medical privileges, be allowed to marry and openly teach gay sex in school nobody wants to teach gay sex in school. we don't currently teach hetero sex in schools. in fact, with the whole abstinence fiasco, we don't teach anything at all about sex in school....This is just like Steve Martin's agenda, only not funny. I didn't particularly find that spiel funny.

2. Gay Pride Parades. After you go off on a spiel about the nonexistent gay agenda, it's unnecessary to inform us that you dislike gay pride parades.

Now, asshat manages to pull off 2/3 of a hat trick and hit two of my hotbuttons:

1. Evangelical Atheists

Disclaimer: I find Richard Dawkins as annoying as everyone else does and I find evangelical atheism a mixed message at best. However, I do not enjoy the comparison between atheists and totalitarian dictators. Once more with feeling: atheism doesn't kill anyone, some atheists do kill, as do some christians, some hindus, some jews, some muslims, and doubtless a few shintos (shintoists?).

These are atheists who just can't leave God alone. actually, they can't leave belief in god alone. you can't annoy the nonexistent. if it turns out that i can, i will give up blogging and dedicate my life to pissing off the easter bunny. Evangelical Atheists live with the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may actually believe in God. no, evangelical atheists have just been pushed a little too far by the rampant bigotry against atheists in this country. admit you're an atheist in public, and get death threats, vandalism and fired. congressman rail against us, ray comfort makes it his life's mission to destroy us all. welcome to being me, asshat. keep your god, like your penis, to yourself. And they are willing to spew the gospel of atheism at the rest of the world as long as they can hide behind the shield of "tolerance." like you spew the gospel of bigotry at the world while hiding behind the shield of the first amendment? Interestingly enough, Evangelical Atheists share a venerable tradition with some of the most notable people of the 20th Century: Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot. i think the word you're looking for is "notorious". don't rape the english language while you're raping euripides' memory. The only difference is that these five individuals not only preached the gospel of atheism, but they set themselves up as gods in an attempt to replace the one, true God. no, the difference is they were murderous psychopaths who got way too much power for anyone's good. but, if you confuse bigotry with intelligence, i guess that's an easy mistake to make.

Read My Lips

Well, you can't, but . . . THERE IS NO FREAKIN' WAR ON CHRISTMAS! See that above? Is that happening to Christmas? No! Get over it!

Ok, I've calmed down a little bit, so let me put it to you this way: I am an atheist. If anyone would want to have a war on Christmas, it would be an atheist. I celebrate Christmas! I put up lights and wreaths, I host a Christmas Eve and Christmas party (we're having prime rib this year), I send out Christmas cards, the whole nine yards. I love Christmas. (Except for the music, but that's another story.)

I, as an atheist, have no interest in ending Christmas. I work for a law firm. Three of the four partners are Jewish. We have a Christmas tree set up in the reception area, we send out Christmas cards and Christmas presents to clients.

There is no war on Christmas.

You are welcome to celebrate Christmas any way you want. You can only celebrate it as a religious holiday, you can celebrate the religious and secular aspects, or only the secular aspects, as I do. And that's the problem. The fundavelagists don't want everyone free to believe what they want. They want everyone to be forced to believe one thing. Freedom means something entirely different to a fundavelagist than was ever meant by the founding fathers.

Try telling that to the fundavelagists.

This is from the RaptureReady message boards, a post entitled Merry . . . Off Work Day.

The OP's tag, by the way? "Humbly proud"

I noticed the hours sign at Cabella's read "Closed Thurs Dec 25". How dare they tell you what day they are closed! The nerve! Uh, hello, not everyone in the US is a native born or a christian. All natives/christians would know what day Christmas is, but a recently immigrated Hindu, for example, might not know what day that is. I know this, because I worked customer service for Fleet Bank for a while, and a large number of callers on July 4 were very confused as to why the bank would be closed on that day. God forbid we give a clear definition of what day the store will be closed! I guess expunging Christmas is in full swing. Yeah, that's it. That's why they bothered to close that day.What a whimp out from a "man's" store. I dunno. Never heard of Cabella's before. Sounded like an Italian restuarant to me. Afraid to face the music eh? What music? Does this idiot imagine that atheists are confronting store owners for displaying the word Christmas? Christmas music no less.

The voice of reason says: Lots of places do that and have for years. It really isn't a big deal.

The voice of theocracy future replies: I know what you mean Wally. I am working seasonal retail at home taking sales calls for a clothing company and we are requested to use the term "December holidays" rather than "Christmas". In case you can't see why, the clothing company is trying not to offend anyone who doesn't celebrate Christmas. I, personally, am not offended by the innocently offered "Merry Christmas", but I can see people of other faiths, or other atheists, getting seriously annoyed by it. Why not include everyone in your well wishing, as opposed to only one group? Although, I have to say, "December holidays" is a little wierd. What about "Happy Holidays"? While there has been a on-going trend of removing God from every aspect of our lives no, there isn't. No one is capable of removing god from your life, idiot. Even in countries where religion actually has been banned, China and Russia, god remained in the lives of the those who wanted him. What is happening is that I no longer have to suffer having your religion shoved down my throat at every turn. Boo fucking hoo., I would say we are seeing a dramatic increase in those who are becoming more forceful about removing Him from our daily living. These individuals and groups who are trying to iradicate God again, how does one eradicate an omnipotent being? are getting bolder as they receive more support from those in agreement with them and less opposition and increased tolerance from the "church".

Trust me, guys. You'll know exactly when the war on Christmas starts. Until someone whips out a Lancer, calm down.