January 31, 2007
More on the jailed rape victim in Florida
After reading the original story, I didn’t think I could be more outraged than I already was. Naturally I was wrong. First, we have the “apology”:
“We feel remorse that she ended up in jail,” said Tampa police spokeswoman Laura McElroy, offering an apology on behalf of the department.
That’s a lovely use of the passive voice there. It’s not, “We’re terribly sorry we put you in jail instead of further investigating your rape”–that would actually require admitting they’d done something wrong! Personally, I don’t think that apology is sufficient. Read the rest of this entry »
January 29, 2007
“Republicans: Stop thinking about gay sex”
Great editorial in the Alamagordo Daily News:
Evidently, every New Mexican makes a decent living wage. No child will go to bed tonight with an empty stomach, because they are all well fed. For that matter, no child will go to bed with an empty mind because our education system is tops in the world.
Evidently our streets are free of drugs. Every New Mexican has a job and can feed their families with a $5.15 minimum wage. Our roads are the best in the nation. Everyone in the state has access to affordable health care.
We can only assume such is the case, because Vaughn isn’t seeking to amend the Constitution to solve any of those problems. No. The most important item on her agenda is to make sure that gay people can’t marry one another in the state of New Mexico.
Same-sex marriage is not currently legal here in New Mexico, so I agree that the idea of going to the trouble to preclude that possibility is a colossal waste of time. In fact, what I would love to see would be for same-sex marriage to be legalized in every state so that state governments could focus their attention on other matters, but I know that wouldn’t be what would happen: wingnuts are so caught up in denying this basic right to millions of American citizens that, as we’ve seen in Massachusetts, should states legalize same-sex marriage, those wingnuts will simply spend their time trying to take that right away. I can’t help but wonder if they genuinely think that’s what Christ would want them to be doing with their time..
January 28, 2007
Re: Donnie Davies’s “music”
There are (were) two possibilities here. One is that he’s serious. I’m gullible, and have been exposed to entirely too many fundies who buy into the “Jesus loves everyone but those queers” idea, so my first impression was that the singer was in earnest in spite of the pink shirt and mustache. Of course, I’m not made of stone; I giggled in disbelief at the lines “to enter heaven there’s no back door” and “righteous man, get on your knees / There lies no virtue in sodomy,” just like pretty much everyone else in the left-wing blogosphere.
Which then, of course, brings us to the second possibility: that this is just a big hoax. It’s a joke. It’s satire. That’s the conclusion Pam Spaulding came to, as well as numerous commenters on Pandagon as well as Crooks and Liars–and now Joe.My.God. has concluded that Donnie Davies is, in fact, Joey Oglesby, and I’m inclined to agree. I agree that much of the material on the Love God’s Way website is ludicrous (Oscar Wilde was a “reformed homosexual”? Riiiiiight…), such that anyone who’s paying attention knows not to take it seriously. However, what about those who aren’t really paying attention? Doesn’t this just feed the flame of anti-LGBTQ rhetoric? I’m the first to state that everyone needs to be able to laugh at themselves, but when we still have to “remind broader society just how ugly a term ‘faggot’ can be”, when grieving parents are confronted by Westboro Baptist Church’s hatemongering signs at their children’s funerals, when a portion of the U.S. population is deliberately given the status of second-class citizen (at best!), might satire that proudly proclaims that “the Bible says God hates fags” be doing more harm than good?
January 27, 2007
Musicians promoting Teh Gay
I wasn’t going to comment at all on Donnie Davies, because the song of his that’s being focused on makes me ill. Seriously, I don’t care if it’s a hoax or not–I made it through half the video and had to turn it off and search for some Ani videos to wash away my disgust. Today, however, I came across his list of “bands to watch out for” (h/t to Crooks and Liars), which I do find amusing (particularly since some of my favorite artists are on the list). Here are some excerpts, with my thoughts: Read the rest of this entry »
January 24, 2007
Rape scene = porn?
In our ongoing series entitled “I haven’t read it/seen it, but I know it’s evil,” I give you the Catholic League versus Hounddog (emphasis added):
PARK CITY, Utah (Reuters) — A flurry of movie deals were struck as the Sundance Film Festival reached its midpoint Tuesday, and the widely anticipated film “Hounddog” debuted, starring young Dakota Fanning as the victim of a child rape.
The movie by writer/director Deborah Kampmeier received a storm of complaints before the festival from groups concerned about a scene in which a 12-year-old girl named Lewellen is raped by a teen-age boy. The groups had not yet seen the film.
The New York-based Catholic League earlier this month called for a federal probe to determine whether child pornography laws were violated because Fanning, like the character she plays, is 12 years old.
People who complain because they expect a movie or book to be objectionable without seeing or reading it, or even talking to the people involved, drive me batty. Expressing concern is one thing; complaining, becoming irate, and/or trying to get the book or movie banned is another matter entirely. And then the assumptions the Catholic League makes about the rape scene frustrate me for a number of reasons. The idea that a depiction of the rape of a twelve-year-old could be considered titilating is heartbreaking–but really, if the Catholic League is concerned about child pornography, aren’t there many more pertinent battles they could be fighting than whether or not Dakota Fanning (who apparently only shows her “face, neck, shoulders, hand and foot” in the rape scene, and who no doubt has plenty of people looking out for her best interests) is being exploited?
January 23, 2007
SOTU open thread
I listened to approximately six minutes of this evening’s State of the Union address. Bush managed to infuriate me twice in that time: first by talking about decreasing spending when even conservative estimates as to how much money is being spent on the war in Iraq are staggering, and then by discussing No Child Left Behind in unabashedly glowing terms when the act is flawed at best. I opted to turn the radio off before I burst any blood vessels.
Evil Bender (after glancing at this post over my shoulder): “SOTU makes me think of STFU.” Indeed–and, for me, in more than one way…
Your thoughts?
January 22, 2007
Blogging for choice: why I’m pro-choice
Why am I pro-choice? It’s fairly simple, actually: I want to have the freedom to make my own decisions when it comes to my reproductive health and well-being. I want the women I love to have that same freedom. As I’ve mentioned before, I’m younger than Roe v. Wade, which celebrates its 34th anniversary today, but my mother isn’t, and she’s told me stories involving friends or acquaintances of hers and back-alley-type abortions. Just because abortion is illegal doesn’t mean women won’t have them; they’ll simply be more dangerous (which is also something I’ve mentioned before).
Furthermore, three rapid-fire thoughts: I don’t see why it should be anyone else’s business what a woman does with her own body; I don’t believe a zygote should be privileged over a fully-formed human being; and many abortion bans include exceptions that can be difficult to interpret, which then makes me wonder who gets to interpret them and brings me back to the idea that what a woman does with her body should be her own business and no one else’s.
Finally, the bumper stickers that read “Against Abortion? Don’t Have One!” are harsh and oversimplified, but I think they have a point. If abortion is legal, women who are pregnant and don’t wish to be have a choice: they can end the pregnancy or they can bear a child. If abortion is illegal, women who are pregnant and don’t wish to be have no choice but to bear the child, regardless of the health problems or mental duress bearing the child might cause. Quite simply, making the choice available is the course of action that makes the most sense to me, and so I am pro-choice.
Infuriating
I have a hypothetical story for you. Let’s say I have a cold. The new Sudafed formula (Sudafed PE) does nothing for me, so I have to ask the pharmacist to give me some of the original-formula Sudafed, which is still technically over-the-counter but is kept behind the counter because it contains pseudoephedrine, which can be used in the manufacture of methamphetamines. The pharmacist, however, refuses to give it to me, stating that he has a moral objection to meth labs. However, there is no legal reason why I shouldn’t be given the Sudafed, so it seems to me that this would be a cut-and-dried case; the pharmacist would be taken to task for refusing to dispense the medication. Read the rest of this entry »
January 19, 2007
Genuinely stunning…
…and I don’t mean that in a good way.
Specter: Now wait a minute, wait a minute. The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in the case of invasion or rebellion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus?
[Attorney General] Gonzales: I meant by that comment that the Constitution doesn’t say that every individual in the United States or every citizen has or is assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.
So, then, Mr. Gonzales, which citizens or individuals in the United States do have the right of habeas corpus? And who gets to make that call?
I don’t always agree with Ed Brayton, but it’s hard to disagree when he says that “It’s time for Gonzales to step down. An attorney general this ignorant of the Constitution has no business doing that job.” Why do I get the feeling that things in this country are going to get worse before they get better?
January 15, 2007
I’m surprised they let him speak to reporters at all anymore
Bush speaking with 60 Minutes’ Scott Pelley:
I am proud of the efforts we did. We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude, and I believe most Iraqis express that. I mean, the people understand that we’ve endured great sacrifice to help them. That’s the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that’s significant enough in Iraq.
The man is delusional. Beyond that, I have no words.
I am the Lizard Queen! 