A response to an item in the Chronk about Michael J. Fox disclosing that he initially would drink to deal with his Parkinson’s diagnosis:
I wonder if that “poorrepublican” was born in Cape Girardeau, Missouri?
Of course, as sure as I say this, Texas A&M’s student paper will out-Stormfront the Daily Texan, but…
…for the time being anyway, I wear my Aggie ring somewhat more proudly knowing that it was UT’s paper that spewed forth the above sub-Malkin cartoon.
For anyone harboring any shred of sympathy for the position espoused by the UT thing, track down Tuesday night’s episode of The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell – and specifically the performance thereon of Zimmerman-apologist Joe Oliver. Jerry Springer ‘guests’ do a better job of looking spontaneous and non-fake than that character did.
From some source, though I forget which:
“I actually feel the political atmosphere has improved markedly for gender identity civil rights,” said Sen. Jamie Raskin (D-Montgomery County), one of the lead sponsors of the bill.
“But the problem is we did same-sex marriage and for some unfathomable reason people seem to think we can’t do both of these bills in the same session,” Raskin told the Blade. “As a number of members said to me, we can’t do two gay bills in one session.”
Cue a certain sockpuppet collective in 3…2…1….
Methinks Denver’s NFL franchise just gained a number of fans equal to or even greater than whatever number it may have lost by trading Focus on the Family Boy to, ummmm… what was it that Dana Beyer just called it – oh, that’s right – “the Jewish capital of the world,” for if it pisses off Crazy Uncle Chuckles its probably a good thing.
Televangelist Pat Robertson says that Denver Broncos quarterback Peyton Manning should be punished with an inury because the team traded devout Christian Tim Tebow.
“And you just ask yourself, OK, Peyton Manning was a tremendous MVP quarterback, but he’s been injured. If that injury comes back, Denver will find itself without a quarterback — and in my opinion, it would serve them right.”
Well, I certainly am unaware of Peyton or Eli teaming up with their mother (or daddy Archie for that matter) to shove an anti-abortion commercial down the throats of an American sports audience who, if they took the christian book of fairy tales as literally as anti-abortion-oids profess to expect everyone to, not only wouldn’t be a collective party – even a passive one – to a business that operates almost exclusively on Sunday but instead would be actively seeking to inflict Pentateuch-ish justice on those who in any way participate in a business that operates almost exclusively on Sunday.
Has anyone ever accused them – any of them – of being nonreligious?
Apparently now, all you have to do is have the nerve to be Less-Than-Tebow for gold-lovin’ Marion to try to faith-unheal you.
…at least insofar as it is actually practiced – which is, of course, not ’employment at will’ but ‘unemployment per the will of the obnoxious executroid elite.’
From the Sun-Sentinel:
[O]range-shirted workers no longer have jobs at the Deerfield Beach law firm of Elizabeth R. Wellborn P.A.
The lie of currently-practiced ’employment at will’ (an even bigger lie than ‘incremental progress’, but I digress) serves no beneficial societal purporse. In fact, it does nothing other than force taxpayers – via unemployment compensation – to subsidize the fits and whims of spoiled-brat management elite.
14 workers wearing orange shirts were called into a conference room, where an executive said he understood there was a protest involving orange, the employees were wearing orange, and they all were fired.
The executive said anyone wearing orange for an innocent reason should speak up. One employee immediately denied involvement with a protest and explained the happy-hour color.
The executives conferred outside the room, returned and upheld the decision: all fired, said Lou Erik Ambert, 31, of Coconut Creek, a litigation para-legal who said he was terminated.
“There is no office policy against wearing orange shirts. We had no warning. We got no severance, no package, no nothing,” said Ambert. “I feel so violated.”
Meloney McLeod, 39, of North Lauderdale, said her choice of shirt puts her in a tough spot: “I’m a single mom with four kids, and I’m out of a job just because I wore orange today.”
Let me revise my previous observation: The lie of currently-practiced ’employment at will’ (an even bigger lie than ‘incremental progress’, but I digress) serves no beneficial societal purporse. In fact, it does nothing other than force taxpayers – via unemployment compensation, multi-pronged harm to children, future costs of taking care of those children who, when grown, may end up as public charges for any number of reasons (from health issues to incarceration), which might be traceable to a sudden, morally unjustifiable stoppage of the only source of income putting food in their mouths and a roof over their heads – to subsidize the fits and whims of useless, spoiled-brat management elite.
I wonder: How many of the self-important, management elite at Elizabeth R. Wellborn P.A. own stock in private prison corporations or other immoral corporate entities whose bottom lines benefit from societal misery created by America’s useless, self-important management elite?
…and attempt to get an international politico-legal organization to make it mandatory.
Would you like fries with that?
How about some anti-semitism?
With neither Ross Levi nor the Empire State Pride Agenda board that fired him last week having much, if anything, to say publicly about the events leading to the former executive director’s March 5 dismissal….
Andrew Stern, a critic who is the chief operating officer at NARAL Pro-Choice New York, has stepped forward to say he withdrew from consideration for the post Levi assumed in May 2010 after being told by ESPA’s search firm that some board members were concerned about how well his “shticky Jewish humor” would serve the organization.
[N]o element is more disturbing that the story NARAL’s Stern tells about his experiences seeking the top job at ESPA in 2010. He first became concerned with the process, he said, when he read in the New York Post that a gay leader at the pro-choice group was among the top contenders for the position. The Post didn’t quite have the story right –– reporting that Kelli Conlin, the out lesbian who then led the group, was that candidate. Stern said it was apparent to his bosses at NARAL that he, in fact, was the gay person seeking the job, and he told the search firm he was unhappy with the breach of his confidentiality.
According to Stern, he soon after heard from an individual close to the board that search committee members expressed the view that he might be “too ethnic” to serve a statewide group effectively. When he raised that with the search firm, he said, he was told several board members thought his “shticky Jewish humor” might not go over with every audience. Offended that an ethnic slur was part of the discussion about his candidacy, Stern withdrew from contention.
Hassner and another board member, he said, left him a voicemail message to emphasize that the comments did not reflect “the values” of the ESPA board, but Stern said he did not return the call.
He acknowledged that in coming forward with the allegations, he runs the risk of looking bitter for not having gotten the job, and explained that that consideration and his unwillingness to sully either Ellner or Levi led him to remain silent in 2010. After learning of Levi’s dismissal, however, he decided that “the board’s behavior is both so despicable and emblematic of an endemic problem that I genuinely felt I had no choice but to come forward.”
One board member, speaking off the record, noting that Van Capelle, Levi, and Ellner are Jewish, cast doubt on Stern’s story, asking why he did not speak out at the time and wondering if his account weren’t simply sour grapes.
So what if they’re Jews?
Remember what the complaint actually was: He was “told by ESPA’s search firm that some board members were concerned about how well his ‘shticky Jewish humor’ would serve the organization.”
It sounds as if the translation of this is: ‘You’re too Jewish’ – which is no less bigoted or discriminatory than an entity who says it doesn’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation allowing a hiring committee consisting of Hillary Rosen clones to collectively say, as part of a hiring search, “They’re both equally qualified, but we want Will. Jack is too much of a fag.”
Implicit, of course, is the “Oh…that woman who was better qualified than either of them? Our investigators learned that she’s a transsexual. Don’t even bother calling her back. We don’t have to anyway. Remember? SONDA? Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!”
In today’s Doonesbury comic strip, a woman is forced by unconstitutional christianist legislation to view a sonogram of a glob of matter that all rational persons know is not actually a lifeform prior to having an abortion. The state-sanctioned christianist shame clinician physically describes the glob of matter that all rational persons know is not actually a lifeform and then asks, “Shall I describe its hopes and dreams?”
To which the autonomous adult female human being who actually is a lifeform replies: “If it wants to be the next Rick Perry, I’ve made up my mind.”
To which someone commented at the website of the Houston Chronk:
This blog post is peaceable activity intended to express a political view and/or to provide information to others about jokes who have bought governorships.
I generally like Michelangelo Signorile. His OutQ show is the only thing on that ridiculous channel that I can stand in the least. (And that’s not a backhanded compliment to him. His show really is good. Derek and Romaine? Not so much…or even at all.)
Michelangelo Signorile, Sirius OutQ radio host and Huffington Post Gay Voices editor-at-large, said Thursday that President Barack Obama seemed to fear the political repercussions of fully supporting same sex marriage.
“Why can’t he simply be with the rest of the country with this?” he wondered during an appearance on The Young Turks. “I think there’s an irrational fear in the campaign and the White House.”
Seen recently on Facebook:
Seen a few minutes after that:
A good question.
My question, however, is this: If President Obama is a “political homophobe” for not willing to callously and carelessly negate the current anti-RepubliRush tidal wave by going whole hog in for something that may cause some or even many of the Independent/Republican women who are currently itching to vote against Republicans over the RepubliRush’s War on Women to vote against an incumbent Democratic president over, are all of the Democrats who have caved over the years on trans-inclusion on ENDA, SONDA, whatever the hell Maryland calls its gay-only actrocity, whatever the hell New Hampshire calls its gay-only actrocity, whatever the hell Delaware calls its gay-only actrocity, and whatever the hell Massachusetts calls its new-Jim Crow actrocity political transphobes?
No, not just St. Barney.
All of them.
Or does that only run in one direction?
want to already know, but we’d like to hear all of you say it anyway…
just for the record.
This blog post is peaceable activity intended to express a political view and/or to provide information to others.
Re: the demanded
re-election suicide gay marriage plank in the 2012 Democratic Party platform:
Several Democratic sources working with the committee have acknowledged that conversations were already underway about how to placate the pro-same-sex marriage majority inside the party without alienating culturally conservative Democrats in states like Ohio and North Carolina, where the convention is being held.
The usual apologists are giving the usual excuses. The DNC’s LGBT caucus isn’t even on board yet. Pathetic. Read the full article by Sam Stein and Amanda Terkel. They did some very good reporting on this one.
This could all be solved if the President would just evolve already. Instead, it’s clear we can expect more political kabuki as the DNC and OFA try to avoid doing what everyone knows should be done.
And, in case the DNC forgot, there’s an anti-gay referendum on the May 8th ballot in North Carolina, with which we could use some help. It’s called Amendment 1. I think the convention will be a lot more fun for people if Amendment 1 loses
Ever notice how unlikely it is that you’ll ever see non-trans gays and lesbians deploy, much less accept, phrases such as “incremental progress” and “the politics of the possible” and “more education is necessary” when it comes to expecting that everyone – from President Obama down to Dog Catcher Dave in Doofusville – accept gay marriage now and nothing less than gay marriage now?
In November, gay marriage will be on the ballots of Washington (12 electoral votes), Minnesota (10), Maine (4) – and in all likelihood Maryland (10).
In all but Minnesota, the issue will be there not solely because of anti-constitutionist theocrats forcing the issue. In Washington there will be an anti-marriage ballot question in response to the pro-marriage law that the state’s legislature passed. In Maryland there will be (in all likelihood) an anti-marriage ballot question in response to the pro-marriage law that the state’s legislature immorally ramrodded through without making any legitimate effort to address the far more basic civil rights needs of people who all who stand to benefit from Maryland gay marriage currently (and will continue to) have the legal right to discriminate against.
And in Maine, it will be on the ballot solely because gays forced a pro-marriage ballot question…
during a presidential election year.
If Rick Santorum is elected president in November by an electoral college margin traceable to any combination of those states going Republican via anti-marriage turnout, what will the “incremental progress for thee, but not for we” crowd do?