Go forth, and read Orcinus: "Remarks like Santorum's used to be commonplace among the Jesse Helms contingent, and the complicit GOP support for gay-bashing was a well-known reality among gays who are not Andrew Sullivan."
HAH! Sullivan is weaving... wait, HE'S DOWN; SULLIVAN IS DOWN!
I was reading something about cloning, and reproduction issues and inferred that the desire to have genetic descendents caused a lot of grief. People want to pass their "heritage" on; they want blood descendants, as if it meant something. When cloning becomes available, I imagine more than a few infertile couples will opt to have a clone, rather than adopt a child. In the meantime, they'll continue taking fertility drugs, using surrogate mothers, whichever. Anything to avoid adopting a child that needs parents now.
So anyway, I was reading this and at one point scoffed, "they should just make it illegal, and force people to adopt." I caught that, and thought about it. I could be so cavalier about it because I would never be on the receiving end of that law. I am remarkably fertile, thanks. I'll never have to deal with that, and so it is easy to just say "it should be illegal."
It is so easy to wish away the rights of other people. Rick Santorum will never (guessing here) have sex with a man, so it's incredibly easy for him and people like him to equate homosexuality with a bunch of other stuff they would never, ever admit to doing do. "Conservative patriots" such as Bill O'Reilly would never, ever protest against a war, so it's easy for them to say people like me should just sit down and shutup or be counted as traitors.
It's important to remember that when we talk about making things illegal, we're denying someone, somewhere the right to free action. It is incumbent upon all of us to make sure that the gain of any particular law outweighs any loss of freedom. Right?
So, I'm wondering about the Rove administration's decision to pull out of Saudi Arabia. This was Osama's primary complaint if I remember correctly; he was unhappy about infidels (that's us) occupying the Holy Land. As an aside, I've seen Saudi Arabia. It didn't look like the holy land, but what's an infidel supposed to know? Anyway, President Rove has to be aware of that. Is it supposed to be a sop to terror? A counterbalance to our ugly and illegal invasion of Iraq? Or does it just reflect our changed priorities? Now that we've got a puppet client state in Iraq, we can move our forces out of Saudi Arabia and still have a place from which to project force in the Middle East. I wonder just how much will change on the "hate America" scale because of this. Sure, we're out of the holy land, but we just kicked the shit out of an essentially-defenseless Arab nation. People who are willing to fly jumbo jets into office buildings probably won't be pacified by this.
Speaking of letters, I've traded a couple of letters with Herr Asshat (see below). I notified that I was talking about him on my web site, so as to allow him to rebut. But he blew me off, so I wrote him back, where he blew me off again with this lame ass e-mail: It's nice that you've found a hobby. I never thought of myself as being such a thorn in the side of the many Idiotarians out there, that someone (such as you) had nothing better to do with your time than to try and nitpick what I write. If you needed a hobby, I would suggest you learn to read for entertainment.
I appreciate the increased traffic, though, and rest assured that I'll be continuing to ignore you and your blog for the foreseeable future.
Oh, I am wounded, WOUNDED I tell you. Ah well. Mr. NoBalls can't be bothered to defend his opinions in public. However, he says on his blog that he is taking requests via e-mail, so why don't you write to Drummy and ask him why he thinks the attack on Iraq was an "unqualified" success?
check out today's action figure dolls link. i laughed. and then i had
to go throw up.
i have tried most of my life to keep in denial that these kinds of
people exist. it's not working. what i'm finding out is that not only
do they survive, but they also reproduce.
I am a conservative, but I am concerned about using that label. It sounds perilously close to "conservationist" which we know means "tree hugging enviro-nazi nature whacko." If we are conservatives, what are we conserving? Please advise.
Conservative Unless Nature Trumps
Dear, um Reader:
You're right. We conservatives have long since ceased to conserve anything. Our goal these days is not to "conserve" but "preserve." We shall preserve the status quo. We shall preserve our political power. We shall preserve our money and our rights to ourselves. We shall preserve Ronald Reagan and Charlatan Heston and roll them out when it is convenient. In short, we are not conservatives, we are Preservatives! Go forth, and remake the world under this new banner, ye forces of preservation!
The recent Supreme Court rejection of the Ten Commandments appeal has ignited something of a bonfire over at Freak Repugnant. It's always fun to watch the bible thumpers take sides against the libertarians and free thinkers.
It got me to thinking that there are, generally, two flavors of conservative. Interestingly enough, they both stem from the Bible, but from different chapters.
The first group is what you call your "Genesis conservatives." They're the economic conservatives who embrace (when it is expedient) the godly injunction to have "dominion over the earth." They tend to think of property rights as the source of liberty, and they're always ready to froth at the prospect of the guv'mint trampling on those rights. Oh yeah, they really hate to pay taxes, too. They oppose environmental protection if it infringes on current or future property rights and generally hold environmentalism to be mushy and soft-headed. Nature is there to be used and exploited, and conservation is good only insofar as it protects economic resources.
The other group is your "Leviticus conservatives." They loooooove to quote chapter and verse about sodomites and fornicators and sodomites and sodomites, but tend to overlook the, um, inconvenient parts of Leviticus. They're the Ric Santorum conservatives. They tend to think of God and Jesus as the source of liberty, and they're always ready to froth at the prospect of someone who disagrees with them. They oppose environmental protections if they think "nature" is being held more in esteem than Christian principles.
On balance, I prefer the Genesis conservatives, as they're much less dogmatic and much easier to get along with. I just don't like how their philosophy tends towards social darwinism, and the implicit assumption that the free market is a panacea for all socio-economic ills.
Here's more from yesterday's wearer of the sombrero de la coolo. It's his "message" to us "leftists":
"Boo.
Hoo.
Get used to using those words, they will be replacing the anti-war chants currently in vogue. The United States won, exposed your lies and seditious behavior, and managed to re-arrange the world to the point where you get to keep whining (just like the chimpanzees in the zoo, only not quite as coherent). So remember these times. We certainly will."
Hoo boy, that's rich. "Anti-war chants currently in vogue?" Yeah, that's what's currently in vogue, sparky. Remember folks, this is the guy who called the "war" in Iraq an "unqualified success." What kind of drugs do you take to be this deluded? Governor Bush killed over 100 American troops fighting a third-world army over weapons of mass destruction that don't exist. The historical legacy of the entire human race was looted while the Ministry of Oil stood secure and as I type this, the radio tells me that US troops are shooting Iraqi protesters. This is the Bush Voter's definition of unqualified success? I suppose it's similar in nature to Bush being unqualified for the presidency.
And this: "managed to re-arrange the world to the point where you get to keep whining." I'm sorry, this looks like English, but it doesn't make any sense. The attack on Iraq "re-arranged" the world so that we (people against the attack) can continue to speak out against the attack?
You're high, old man.
"Remember these times. We certainly will." Yes, I'm sure you'll think back often to these glorious times and get a stiff one as you think of our diminshing civil liberties; our broken economy; our tarnished international reputation; our ignoble, craven leadership.
Or do you mean, perhaps, that you're taking names? Making lists of the people to line up against the wall when the time comes? That thought probably makes you sport wood, too, huh?
I accidently stumbled over an asshat's blog, where I read this particular bit of asshattery about the unilateral invasion of Iraq: "I'd say it was pretty much an unqualified success, but I don't see Janeane Garofalo with any bandages on her knees. I can only assume that she is continuing to chicken out and deny that she was wrong. I don't see Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins and Barbra Streisand and Martin Sheen and Tom Daschle and Nancy Pelosi and Woody Harrelson and Jessica Lange out there admitting that they may have been wrong in their opposition to this war."
Hey, dumbass
It was NEVER about whether or not we would win the military conflict. It was about if we should have been there in the first place, and the answer is still unequivocally "NO!"
I'll admit I was wrong in my opposition to this war as soon as Herr Drumwaster admits that Bush lied to get his war. I'll admit I was wrong as soon as anybody on the right concedes that pre-emptive war sets a bad precedent. And speaking of Bad Presidents, I'll admit I was wrong in my opposition to this war as soon as asshat central sends out a memo admitting that it's a bad idea to let unelected morons have control of the military.
