Really, Sarah? Really?

November 24, 2008

I knew the camera guy had to know what was going on — turns out he wasn’t making a bid for the daily show crew afterall, Palin is just that ridiculous. (Link-thanks: R-Mart.)

The truly notable thing about this video is not that Palin didn’t mind the “horrors” happening behind her — it’s that she wanted it in the shot. Palin was apparently told, by the cameraman, something akin to “Hey, you know they’re killing turkeys behind you, right?” And, as an aide told MSNBC, she replied, “No worries.”

If this is true – and I only say “if” becuase it comes from an anonymous source and is so ridiculous it pushes the boundaries of human reason — then the question still remains: doesn’t she pay people to stop this from happenning?  And if I were Sarah Palin, I’d fire my entire staff and get all new aides, since they seem to be constantly leaking negative information to the press.  WTF?


When I read a blog headline this morning stating “Sarah Palin Pardons Turkey; Turkey Slaughter Ensues,” I thought it was a joke.

It wasn’t.
DCist mentioned it today.
I’m thinking, the camera guy and the reporter HAD to have known what was going on.  It’s basic tv news 101.  I’m amazed they kept from giggling as they were filming it.  And doesn’t she pay people to make sure this stuff doesn’t happen?  I get that rural life is a lot different than urban life, but come on.

^you have to repeat “times” like that to show that it’s echoing.  It’s echoing because it’s epic.  But more than epic, it’s also where i want to go this weekend.  I’m hoping me, maximus, trina and paulula can all go on caturday, but the ladeez are “oh i’m busy with my things.”  But um… there’s a sale right now — buy one ticket, get one ticket free.  Frugal people will recognize this as b1g1, or BOGO.

i wanna go BOGO at medieval times… yo…

Really do you need convincing? Fine. Just look at this:



Also, there’s going to be a Falconer (the sport of kings), a Master of Horse, a wench, and a delicous feast!

I read a really irritating article today going on about how the gay marriage rights isn’t really a civil rights issue.  Basically the author makes two points: 1) black people had it so bad that they now have a monopoly on civil rights claims and 2) just because someone doesn’t think gays should have equal rights doesn’t mean they have a problem with gays, it probably is just that these people are clinging to traditional gender roles (the author says sex repeatedly when he really means gender.)

The whole whacked article is here.  Some of the points aren’t bad, but the author really misses some key things.  For one, he says that

Anti-miscegenation laws were designed to prevent intimate racial mixing of any kind; by contrast, many of the people who voted to ban same-sex marriage are apparently supportive of same-sex intimacy—provided you don’t call it marriage.

I’d like to point out that it was only about five years ago that the US Supreme Court finally knocked down laws that were designed to prevent intimate same-sex relationships of any kind.  To think that there simply aren’t people who are expressing their homophobia through the whole “well, they just can’t call it marriage” argument because they can’t take away gays’ rights to even be gay is naive or ignorant at best.

Of course this is about gay people being gay and straight people not liking that.  Let’s look at it from another perspective (even though Mr. Ford doesn’t think we should.)

If I told you “I don’t have a problem with black people. I mean, I totally agree they should have the right to vote, and slavery was tooootally bad.  I just don’t think they should be in schools with white people.”  You would never ever respond “Oh yeah, jarebear’s not racist.  He supports blacks on other issues.  Just because he doesn’t think they should have one little right doesn’t make him racist! He’s just trying to preserve the education system as he knows it!”

Right? You would never say that.  Unless you actually agreed with the first statement.  BECAUSE IT’S RIDICULOUSLY OBVIOUS WHAT’S GOING ON.  It’s just so outrageous that there are people like this out making up the most convoluted ridiculous roundabout ways to try and explain away discrimination.  Isn’t it obvious that it’s real, and present in the US today?

I’ve always felt that homophobia was a bad term for it.  If you discriminate based on race, you’re racist; on sex, you’re sexist.  Sexualitist doesn’t flow right… i think Gaycist is pretty good though.  I think we’re facing gaycism and pretending it isn’t real isn’t going to make it go away.

All aboard the fun train!

November 17, 2008

I decided I wanted my own personal blog to share with the world.  I already have one, of course, but thought it would be nice to try to start with a little bit lighter fare. So, you can come here to keep up to date on all the exciting things I think are worth talking about.  Such topics may include:

  • Politics?
  • The Human/Animal War
  • Gay Politics
  • Gay Animals
  • Gay Wars
  • The state of the Gaytion
  • Other gay puns (IS THAT META?!)
  • Comics
  • Hollas to my homies
  • Things that irritate me (think: Andy Rooney)
  • Bullet-pointed lists
  • Things that make me giggle (think: Andy Pooney)
  • Why i don’t like Autotune
  • DC stuff
  • Why torrenting is awesome
  • I ride bike.
  • Being Frugal
  • Being smarter than most people
  • The subtle differences between arrogance and statistics
  • Working in PR

So, welcome to the fun train.  Welcome to my Gay Agenda.