Utopia 2025

La Shawn Barber, everyone’s favorite black conservative evangelical blogger, has always taken her self-absorption to spectacular levels. Most of her posts are about her. Not her opinions, or her analysis of the issues, but *her* – her wonderful success, what accolades she’s receiving, the famous people she hobnobs with, and the tribulations of being such a famous online figure. I sometimes wonder how the woman types, since she spends so much time patting herself on the back. Images on her site are 90 percent of, you guessed it, her face.

Well, she’s outdone even herself this time.

Mind you, she’s still interesting to read, because a wacky opinion or two does manage to sneak in now and again. Like her enthusiastic support for the torture at Abu Ghraib. Or how she said she was absolutely sure there was no intelligent life on other planets, because only Earth is mentioned in the Bible. I hate to break it to you, La Shawn, but God doesn’t mention microwave ovens or the Nintendo Wii in the Bible either – does that mean they don’t exist?

Wait – I take it back about the Nintendo Wii. I’m beginning to think its existence is just a cruel joke, probably by some godless heathens. When will they learn?

Happy Winter Solstice, everyone.

Why do people who natter on endlessly about the “gay agenda” so often use a variation of the phrase, “having it crammed down my throat”?

Draw your own conclusions.

Bonus video: Ray Comfort enjoys a banana.
(Thanks to Lisa, who I hope will write her own weblog one day.)

The selfishness in this is demanding to experience motherhood and having a child, just because she can. there are plenty of children worthy of adoption that she could raise and devote her life to. just because one is capable of bearing a child doesn’t mean one SHOULD, and especially if the lifestyle she has chosen doesn’t encompass bearing a child as a consequence thereof. yes, it is extremely selfish of her.

OK. So you’re in favor of gay people adopting?

As far as I know, both Cheney and her husband/wife/roommate/partner/whatever are working women. So unless one of them is planning on giving up their career, this child will be raised, in effect, without either a true mother or father. But of course, children of the “elite” have always been abandoned by their parents and raised by nannies. That’s why so many of them are so incredibly screwed up to begin with.

Hmm. So the real problem is that Mary Cheney is rich, is that right? When will you right-wingers stop hating the rich?

It looks like FReepers are now going pro-gay. Or is it just selectively pro-gay because it’s Dick Cheyney’s daughter? ‘It’s ok when this person does it, but no one else can.’ Despicable. No wonder conservatives are losing. We can’t even be consistent in our message.

Yes – you need to be more consistently anti-gay. Good luck with that!

As a matter of fact, a lesbian couple that I know had a baby through artificial insemination and then when the child was ready to enter school, the mother realized that she didn’t want to be a lesbian anymore because it would make life too difficult for the child. She’s now married to a man.

Whew! Glad everything worked out.

But when you consider that Mary Cheny has an agenda. One that includes gay marriages, gays adopting children, special rights for gays, then on to abortion rights, abandoning the WOD, Cutting and Running, and even going panty-less in limo’s…

Well the point is that Mary Cheney’s baby DOES affect us all.

Wait, I’m confused. Mary Cheney wants us all to skip underwear and ride in limos?

The fact that Cheney had a lesbian daughter to begin with should have disqualified him from being on a conservative Republican ticket. Its not like he just found out in 2001. The idiots in charge of Bush’s campaign are to blame for this even coming up.

If only. If only.

“They formed a study group. That’s great – but the test was three years ago.”
-Jon Stewart, last night on The Daily Show

“In all my time in Washington I’ve never seen such smugness, arrogance, or such insufferable moral superiority. Self-congratulatory. Full of itself. Horrible.”
-Gambling addict and moral scold Bill Bennett, on National Review Online’s “The Corner” weblog

Memo to Bill Bennett: Look in the mirror, dude.

First, the Democrats take the House and the Senate.

Then, Rumsfeld is out.

Then, John Bolton is gone from the U.N.

Then, Secretary of Defense nominee Robert Gates says we are not winning in Iraq.

And now, Mary Cheney is pregnant.

When did we enter this beautiful alternate universe? I never want to leave.

“Clearly the Iraqi people are not embracing freedom, so imposing order through a military strongman might be the only way.”

-Bill O’Reilly tonight, channeling Bill Maher in his call for installing a new military dictatorship in Iraq

“As much as I love the president and what he stands for, this “saving face” stubbornness is really not representative of conservative values. He must own up, change the tune, and come up with a new plan. It’s a civil war, and it’s all because we tried to give them democracy too quickly. A pro-USA dictator would have done the job and kept them from fighting.”

-FreeRepublic commenter aristotleman, on Bush’s inability to say the phrase “civil war” when talking about Iraq

It’s official: no one has a sense of humor anymore.

It’s a fucking funny movie, people. Get. over. yourselves.

One of my first posts on my old site dealt with the (then) new phenomenon of right-wingers calling them “government schools” instead of “public schools.” I believe this was to evoke “government cheese” and the idea that people aren’t too thrilled with government, even though they like things that are public.

These days I’ve been struck by how the crapweasels refer to it as the “Democrat Party” instead of the “Democratic Party.” Is this because “democratic” is too positive a word? Is it because the word “democrat” ends in “rat”? I honestly don’t know. But even the New York Times Manual of Style and Usage has noticed:

Democrat (n.), Democratic (adj.), for the party and its members. Do not use Democrat as a modifier (the Democrat Party), that construction is used by opponents to disparage the party.

Now that the right-wingers don’t control every aspect of American society, expect this sort of crap to ramp up, along with fake outrage at everything even remotely liberal. Remember when Bill Clinton’s haircut was a giant scandal? Multiply that by 1,000, and you might get close to how it’s going to be for the next two years.

Be careful what you wish for, as they say – you might just get it.

Well Dean Esmay, who has tried to masquerade as being pro-gay despite being an HIV denialist and never speaking of gay people without simultaneously crowing about “backlash” now reveals his true feelings: being gay is either a result of trauma or biological error.

Thanks, Dean. Love you too, man. I’ve wanted to compare you to one of the creatures from “The Island of Dr. Moreau” for a long time, but I’ve managed to hold off.

—————————

For reasons that are too embarrassing to recount here, I was going over my archives at my old site, and came upon this sample text for wimpy Democrats to use back in late 2003 when talking about marriage rights for gay people. Well now it’s election time again, and I think I hit the nail on the head back then.

I think what’s important here is to understand the difference between civil and religious marriage. Religious marriage is a sacrament, and I don’t believe the government has any business telling any religion who they can and cannot marry. But civil marriage is a legal contract that’s enforced by the state, and that confers rights on the citizens that enter into that contract. I believe Americans are a fundamentally fair people. And this is about fairness – allowing people who want to enter into committed relationships, relationships that strengthen the society, to get the rights conferred by civil marriage.

There’s a lot of talk about civil unions these days – trying to create a system alongside civil marriage that would involve the same rights. But why create a new system, a new bureaucracy, to try to simulate something already in place? Is that fair? I don’t think it is. “Separate but equal” didn’t work in the civil rights era, and it doesn’t work here. I know there are a lot of Americans who are uncomfortable with homosexuality. But that unease shouldn’t be enough reason to deny basic rights to citizens of the United States of America.

See? That wasn’t so difficult, now was it?