Please refer to the icon:

Dennis Kucinich:

I would say that I think we need a politics which does not condemn people. So I am not going to condemn them. But what I am going to say is that FOX is a legitimate news agency that has the ability to reach out to millions of Americans, so why not get that message out? That is what I want to do, and all Democrats should be capable of doing it.

Great. Wonderful. And on top of that, we've got Hillary and Obama flat out refusing to say four simple words in response to General "Let's Shoot Some Fags" Pace: "Homosexuality is not immoral"

Note to Barack Obama: Just say it. You're not going to win a single social conservative vote anyway, so WHY FUCKING BOTHER TRYING. Be the candidate that has the balls to say "That guy is a nut, gay bashing is wrong, and being gay is not immoral". You only need 50.1%. You don't need to win Alabama and Georgia. You do need to win California.

-pb

Ann Coulter, it's so good to have you back. Smoove B has missed your near-skeletal frame, baby.

Ann Coulter, fuckwit extraordinare, has crossed yet another line of decorum. Oh noes! Never! you shout Never! Not Ann "kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" Coulter?

Yes, the same, dear friends:

I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot’–so….

She's taken my "beyond the pale" to a whole new level.

-pb

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/05/gay.marriage.ap/index.html

Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced a ballot measure that would require heterosexual couples to have a child within three years or have their marriages annulled.

So, if marriages are, first and foremost, for the production and raising of children, then that's what they should be forced to do. Because if you're using that logic to bar two people who happen to be men from marrying, then every married couple should be forced to start cranking out kids. Infertile? Guess you don't need all the hundreds of other priviledges that go with marriage.

The only downside to this is the concept of what you do if by some chance if actually wins. It is a great point to be made, though.

-pb

Joe Biden, Democratic Senator from Delaware, has decided to run for President. I'll take Dennis Kucinich for my longshot, thank you.

First off, Joe's got some lingering issues from when he plagiarized a speech from a British MP back in 1988. And now, he's come out swinging against black people. In an interview with the New York Observer, Biden had this to say about Barack Obama:

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

Wow.

So, how does this read?

a) "you got the first mainstream African-American running for president who just happens to be articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy" OR
b) "you got the first articulate and bright African-American running for president"

Because there's no other way I can see to interpret that statement. And even if you go with (a), you're completely forgetting that Carol Mosely Braun, who represented Illinois (the 5th most populous state) ran in 2004, and Jesse Jackson won 11 primaries in one of his runs. Not exactly not mainstream. Or, are you calling both of them not "articulate and bright and clean"?

Good one, Joe.

-pb

Religious Conservatives Gather to Discuss 'War Against Christians'

"The message of 'V for Vendetta' is that Christians are plotting to seize the reins of power."

No, the message of 'V for Vendetta' is that fascist, totalitarian governments can only control the people for so long until someone stands up and refuses to be put down. It only features your uber-corrupt version of Christianity as the antagonist because it's something familiar to the target audience. And why is that? Because you've been forcing this Christofacist ideology down our throats for years, and screaming about how we're attacking you when we choke on it.

"...a self-described progressive evangelical..."

Well hole-e-shit. What is that? WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT? (Sir, a self-described progressive evangelical, sir!) Not a self-described pagan, but a self-described progressive evangelical. Of course, this is to be expected. Anyone who falls outside the "mainstream" can only be "self-described", and therefore, not legitimate.

Because no one who is anything ever calls themselves that.

"I'm the President of the United States." ~ George W. Bush, 12/17/2005 - George W. Bush, self-described President of the United States. How come we never see that from the goddamned liberal media?

I digress.

This so-called "War on Christianity" is a fabrication. It's a smokescreen and a strawman. "We're under attack!" they scream. "Gather to our banner and help us! IF YOU'RE NOT WITH US, YOU'RE AGAINST US!" Sounds like the same tired old rhetoric. Newsflash: Christianity is not under attack. Simply because you perceive it to be does not make it so. Liberal Judges are not trying to erase you. In fact, the judges that have made decisions that you don't like (i.e., activist judges) tend to be overwhelmingly conservative. Hollywood is not out to get you. In fact, most of the battles in this so-called war are battles that you, the Religious Conservatives have started!

Gay marriage is not an assault on Christianity. Christians trying to ban it, that's an assault on homosexuals.
Evolution is not an assault on Christianity. Intelligent Design is an assault on science.
Abortion is not an assault on Christianity. Bombing abortion clinics in an assault on women.

It's not a "War on Christianity", it's a "War for Ideology". Right-wing Christians believe, despite being the priviledge majority, that they are the repressed minority. They want their ideology pushed on everyone else, and recoil in horror when everyone else objects. They started this war, and labeled it a war against them. Sounds like a kid getting his hand caught in the cookie jar and then complaining that there weren't enough cookies in it.

-pb

But I had this in my head, and it jumped onto the paper.



-js?!

Yoinked from evinumen:

Bush crony tries to pass legislation that would restrict government funds from supporting any theatrical or literary work that has homosexual characters.

After trying desperately, but failing miserably to send every last Black, Jew, Jehovah's Witness, and political dissident to the ovens, the jackboot fascist christo-nazi war machine goes after literature and the arts in what can only be the run-up to wholesale slaughter of homosexuals, and then, by extension, homosexual sympathizers, liberals, non-christians, and anyone who's not a whitebread NASCAR fan.

And no, I'm not being sarcastic. They've progressed far beyond stopping gay marraige. Now that they've got 14 states under their belt, they're trying fanatically to erase homosexuality from our pop culture. How soon until we have a gay version of the Nuremburg laws and mass genocide?

That's right it starts with a little book burning in the name of God. Next thing you know, you're hiding in an attic.

When you consider that Canada's supreme court ruled that same-sex marriages are legal, and with Parlaiment moving to pass legislation that would solidify that in their Constitution, how soon do you think Bush will move to invade them as "Enemies of Morality"?

-pb

Separation of Church and State
Above all else, the separation of religion from the state must be maintained. If spiritual influences are allowed to overwhelmingly influence temporal politics, we risk a return to the violent and backwards past where theocracy trumps democracy. In this country, we have a blend of cultures and religions. While there is a clear majority who practice one particular religion, even that majority differs wildly in the interpretation of its religion. There cannot be any legislation seen to promote a particular sect’s ideology without trampling on that of another sect. Therefore, any legislation that is motivated by the ideals or morality of a particular religion must be quashed.

Marriage
Marriage is religious institution, and in keeping with the above separation, the government should have no hand in it. However, the government should be able to regulate civil unions, that are at their core, partnerships between two consenting adults.
The government should have no say as to which two consenting adults should be joined in a civil union. If a religious organization has qualms or rules as to who it will consider married, then it is by all means entitled to make that descison. The state, however, should make no distinctions. For it to do so would be to foster discrimination, prejudice, and a religious bias.
(Polygamy, in and of itself, is not a societal ill, but it presents such a logistical issue as to not be feasible without extensive legislation, and therefore, should be avoided.)

Welfare
Our state is governed by a government "by the people, for the people". Therefore, the state has an obligation to give aid to those who are unable to provide for themselves. However, this aid should not be simply handed out with no return expected.
Welfare recipients of working age and capability should be expected to do so in return for continued support. The state should also provide education and advancement programs with the interest of producing a productive tax-paying citizen in order to recoup the costs of support. Those who do not wish to become productive citizens should therefore not be entitled to such benefits.
Those who are too young, too old, or too disabled to work should be given ample care to live, without exception.
The state should also guarantee a minimum living wage that would put a single full-time employee above the poverty line.

Healthcare
As all working citizens are required to pay taxes to support the state, the state should reciprocate by offering low-cost, quality healthcare to all citizens. This healthcare should include preventive medicine in an effort to increase quality of life, and reduce expenses for high-cost procedures that could have been prevented with ample care.
It is the duty of the citizen to be productive for the enrichment of themselves, and by extension, the state. It is the duty of the state to ensure that the citizen has every opportunity to remain productive.
Incorporated in this healthcare package should be a minimum vacation and sick leave guarantee of no less than two weeks vacation and 5 sick days per year.

Education
In accordance with allowing citizens to reach a higher potential, and therefore be more productive tax-paying citizens, the state should provide a minimum standard for high-school graduation that is based less on performance and more on actual learning. Cultural factors must be considered, especially for Natives Americans and Spanish speakers who may not have learned English as their first tongue. English fluency should be mandatory, but not at the expense of native languages, or arts and humanities.
Additionally, the burden of higher education costs must also rest partially with the state. As our society moves away from manufacturing, it is incumbent upon the state to ensure that all citizens are afforded every opportunity to become productive in the new economic model.

Feel free to agree, disagree, and/or call me names.

So, the GOP finally got a candidate to run against Barack Obama for the senate seat in Illinois. They had to go all the way to Maryland, but they did it. They got Alan Keyes. He's black, just like Obama, so race won't be an issue here (one would hope). One of them will be the fifth black senator EVER. That, in itself, is disturbing. Of course, I wouldn't mind seeing more Hispanics in office, considering they are the largest minority.

Alan Keyes is a fascist, plain and simple. If anyone in Illinois is reading, take notes. Here's a look at Keyes, in his own words. And don't worry about Obama. You'll hear enough dirt about him (real or imagined, it doesn't matter) between now and November 2nd.

...[A] prohibition on moral judgments against various sexual behaviors is a violation of the freedom, even of the religious liberty, of those who view such behavior as wrong.

Conservatives hate Political Correctness. However, like all things they hate, they'll stomach them long enough to use them to their own advantage. Keyes says here that stopping laws against sexual behaviors is actually against Freedom of Religion, because it would offend people who think that such behaviors are offensive. So, wait, if I find something that someone else does in private to be offensive to my religion, I can consider that to be against my First Amendment right to Freedom of Religion? I found it pretty offensive when Jerry Falwell accused pagans of being the cause of 9/11 (along with homosexuals and abortionist). Does that mean that Jerry Falwell has violated my rights? You know, much as I'd love to believe that, it's just not true.

He goes on to say:

Can the free exercise of religion really mean simply that I have the right to believe that God has ordained certain things to be right or wrong but that I can't act accordingly?

I love the delusion that just because someone has been granted the right to love and/or have consensual sex with anyone, in any position, somehow that means that EVERYONE HAS TO DO THE SAME. Because if two men are engaged in vigorous anal copulation somewhere, and it's completely legal, then Alan Keyes is legally obligated to engage in some man-on-man action of his own. Because if you make it legal for two men to marry, they obviously, you're making it illegal for a man and a woman to marry.

There are certain circumstances in which the death penalty is essential to our respect for life. If we do not in our law send the message to everybody that by calculatedly, coldly taking a human life in a way that assaults the structures of law in a society or shows a cold-blooded and studied disregard for the value of that life, if we are not willing to implement the death penalty in those circumstances, then we are actually sending a message of contempt for human life. We are encouraging people to believe that that step is not in fact a terminal step, when they fatefully and fatally decide to move against the life of another human being. So I think that there are circumstances under which it is essential, in fact, that we have and apply the death penalty in order to send a clear moral message to people throughout our society that we will not tolerate that kind of disrespect for life.

This is one of the best arguments I've ever heard in terms of 'things that make me anti-death penalty'.

If we don't have a death penalty, we'll be showing contempt for human life. If we don't kill people, then we'll be showing that we don't care about killing people.

If we don't show disrespect for life, then we're showing disrespect for life! War is peace! Hate is love!

The Federal Government should cease funding & regulating K-12 education.

He's anti-education. In a fascist state, the government likes to control the education so that their doctrine is pushed above all others. Keyes wants the government out of education, but he wants religious schooling to supplant secular schooling. So, the effect is the same. The ruling doctrine would still be enforced.

Our first priority should be restoring the moral and material support for the marriage-based two-parent family. The disintegration of the family is the major contributing factor in poverty, crime, violence, the decline in educational performance, and a host of other expensive social problems.

This is in the greater vein of anti-homosexual rhetoric. Keyes apparently believes that if a mother dies in childbirth, then the single father is less capable of raising that child, and therefore, is aiding in the rise of poverty, crime, violence, etc.. Same goes for a single mother who lost her husband in Iraq. Likewise, two well-adjusted, affluent, supportive, yet homosexual parents are also aiding in this cycle of violence. Conservatives never bring up the fact that US divorce rates are over 50%. They just look at same-sex couples and think "they're destroying our culture".

I believe that the [missile strikes against Sudan and Afghanistan] last week does serve the best interest of the country.

This falls under the category of talk out both sides of your mouth. Here, we've got support for Bill Clinton's foreign policy, and here...

We need to end the Clinton policy of interventionism on behalf of all kinds of globalist interests that are of not direct relevance to our values. Kosovo was an example. We ought to avoid interventions that are based on propaganda.

...he attacks it. Because halting genocide (especially against Muslims) is something that the US just shouldn't be doing. Also, it wasn't genocide, it was just propaganda. Kinda like when foreign media outlets report that we're holding prisoners off the record and allowing our 'allies' to slaughter enemy citizens. That's just propaganda.

After all, asking whether we should spend $300 million to cure an incurable disease [AIDS] is kind of an academic point, and you should realize that.

So, AIDS is incureable. Just like Polio. Just like the Black Plague. Just like Smallpox. Don't bother helping the millions of dying Africans, because you can't cure them. Don't even try.

The 2nd Amendment was not put into the Constitution by the Founders merely to allow us to intimidate burglars, or hunt rabbits to our hearts’ content. The Founders added the 2nd Amendment so that when, after a long train of abuses, a government evinces a methodical design upon our natural rights, we will have the means to protect and recover our rights. That is why the right to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights.

Actually, the wording is "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The wording of the amendment itself nullifies it. A well regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state, because we have a standing military. Everything after that is therefore null and void.

That being said, I have no problem with people owning hunting rifles and the like, because they are designed for hunting. Can they be used to kill another person? Sure. It's just not easy to hide one in the waistband of your pants. I'd love to see bullets regulated. Own a handgun? That's fine. No bullets for you, though. Want to go hunting? Great. Show your permit to purchase your bullets. Remember, guns don't kill people, bullets do. I'd rather fight with swords. It's a much more personal form of combat. If you don't have another person's blood on you when you kill them, you're a coward.

Keyes also advocated the imprisonment and possible execution of one of my favorite writers/cartoonists, Ted Rall for his criticism of the Bush administration in the months following 9/11. Alan Keyes is very anti-First Amendment, very pro-gun (above and beyond the Second Amendment), and a religious fanatic. Just keep that in mind when you head to the polls, Illinois.

-pb

From MSNBC.com. 320,113 Responses. It's not scientific, but it's disturbing enough for me.


Which issue should Congress make its top priority this fall?

Social Security - 7%
Homeland security/Intelligence reform - 25%
Making Bush tax cuts permanent - 8%
Iraq - 8%
Banning gay marriage - 9%
Balancing the budget - 11%
Tort reform - 1%
Reducing dependence on foreign oil - 15%
Health care - 16%


Ok, so on the surface, it's not too bad. But I find it absolutely sick that there's more people who want the First Amendment trampled upon to ban same sex marriages than there are people who want Congress to worry about THE WAR THAT WE'RE FIGHTING IN IRAQ. Hello? What the hell are they thinking? Every time a gay couple gets married, a US Serviceman is summarily executed? Just like bells and angel wings.

More people want permanent tax cuts for the wealthy than a fix for Social Security.

More people think Homeland Security is a top priority than health care and Social Security combined.

To sum up: America wants to become a gulag. A place with barbed wire fences where people work and work all day, and die when they get sick. A country where 1% of the population controls everything the other 99% does. A nation of paranoiacs who feel more need to reach into America's bedrooms than worry about their sons and daughters being sent thousands of miles away to die.

Are we that bad? Is this the ultimate goal of the American dream? All throught the Cold War, we were taught to believe that the Russian people lived in fear. We were taught that we were free, and the enemy despised our freedom. Wake up, people. We're creating our own prison. It's ideological today, but tomorrow, that ideology is going to be 20 foot high walls with razor wire at the top.

Incedentally, I voted for Health care.

-pb

A Pennsylvania ruling on a case dealing with surrogacy has a line that I find a bit disturbing:

The judge also invalidated the surrogacy contract because it named no legal mother for the babies.

Wait, hold on a second. The contract existed between a man who was engaged, and the surrogate mother a woman who is already married with three children who would be nothing more than a womb for the purposes of the contract. A judge considered it null because it named no legal mother for the child(ren).

So children have to have a legal mother? So, gay couples couldn't adopt? Couldn't have a child with a surrogate? This creates a huge legal grey area. What if, for instance, gay marraige was completely legalized, and two men were married, one of which was in a previous marriage with a woman, and had children. That woman dies, and the man gains custody. Upon his death, would his husband not be able to gain custody, because there is no legal mother?

Could a heterosexual man have his child taken from him if his wife dies in labor?

Now, the circumstances of the case were such that the surrogate mother took the children home because the father didn't take them as per the contract. The contract could easily have been nullified on this matter. Why the judge chose strange legal wording is beyond me, but it's sure to become a huge problem to someone down the line.

Here's the original article.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04105/300581.stm

Here's another disturbing case against a midwife for an Amish couple who is on trial for manslaughter because the baby died. (strangely enough, also from Western PA)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5136777/

-pb

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/5663/CWA/misc/

My favorite part is their manifesto for American Morality. Apparently, gays, porno and liberals are the reason that we're a target for Terrorism. It has absolutely nothing to do with our insane support of Israel, our imperialistic advances in the Middle East, propping up dictators as long as it suits us.

Nope. All of that was just pissing them off a bit. Once they saw that gay couples were getting married in Massachussetts, they decided to take down the Trade Towers. They got a look at the porn industry, and decided to start bombing embassies. It all makes perfect sense now!

-pb

"I share a deep disgust that those prisoners were treated the way they were treated. Their treatment does not reflect the nature of the American people."
—George W. Bush, May 4

"[The beheading of Nick Berg] shows the true nature of the enemies of freedom. They have no regard for the lives of innocent men, women and children."
—White House spokesman Scott McClellan, May 11


Because all Arabs are out for our heads, but only seven (or was it one?) Americans have ever EVER been bad.

Makes sense to me.

In other news, V. spotted $2.01/gallon gas. We spent $59 filling up our cars this week, and we're off to North Carolina this weekend. All the chirping the right has done about a few new jobs is going to fly out the window when companies start laying people off to pay for their shipping costs.

-pb

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4919183/

Now, if they can make it stick.

-pb

Abortion?:	Keep your laws of my woman!
Death Penalty?:	If there were a flawless way to determine guilt or innoncence, I would approve of the death penalty dor crimes that normally warrant a life sentence.
Prostitution?:	The first profession! It should be legalized and regulated to make it safer for all involved.
Alcohol?:	I like the hard liquor.
Marijuana?:	While I've never partaken, I have no problem with it, and think that the government keeps it illegal out of spite.
Other drugs?:	Now, there's a genuine problem.
Gay marriage?:	There should be no restrictions on consenting, unrelated adults marrying.
Illegal immigrants?:	Why do they keep coming here when we keep sending our jobs somewhere else?
Smoking?:	Gave it up.
Drunk driving?:	Should be a much longer prison sentence.
Cloning?:	Human cloning is impractical and stupid. Stem cell research should be promoted.
Racism?:	Ethnic penis envy.
Premarital sex?:	A religious issue. I don't care who sleeps with who under what pretenses, as long as it's not rape or incest. Get over it.
Religion?:	It's the cause of billions of deaths throughout the ages.
The war in Iraq?:	Illegal, immoral, unjust, and all about oil.
Bush?:	A fascist fundamentalist warmongering criminal.
Downloading music?:	Not as damaging as the RIAA makes it out to be.
The legal drinking age?:	Health studies have proven that 21 is the best minimum drinking age... but that didn't stop me.
Porn?:	It's a ton of fun!
Suicide?:	Pretty friggin' dumb.

What is your stand on..... brought to you by BZOINK!

-pb