The Evil Petting Zoo

Apparently, Dick Cheney's just peachy keen with the idea of being a terrorist:

"Capture one of these killers, and he'll be quick to demand the protections of the Geneva Convention and the Constitution of the United States," the Vice President said in the Saturday morning speech. "Yet when they wage attacks or take captives, their delicate sensibilities seem to fall away."

It's clear what Cheney's saying here, right? "They would do this to us. They have done this to us. That means we have a full right to repay the favor."

I can't believe this has to be said again: when you act like the bad guys, you become bad guys. You do not remain the good guys just because you stand for Mom and apple pie and they stand for repression and mass slaughter. If the enemy takes some sinister action that breaks a clearly defined rule, then you do not play "monkey see, monkey do." And if you do do such a thing, then you take responsibility for it. You do not claim that what you have done is just, and right, and godly. Rather, you say that you did what had to be done, and you accept the penalties of your action.

But that would require for Cheney to feel something vaguely resembling guilt when it comes to this war. Good luck with that.

Hell-oooooo, autocracy!

With scarcely a mention in the mainstream media, President Bush has ordered up a plan for responding to a catastrophic attack.
In a new National Security Presidential Directive, Bush lays out his plans for dealing with a “catastrophic emergency.”

Under that plan, he entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility “for ensuring constitutional government.”

Now, obviously, this has to be some sort of dire emergency, right? Like, a nuke goes off in Washington while the president's down in Crawford... again. That's the kind of emergency we're talking about, right?

The subject of the document is entitled “National Continuity Policy.”

It defines a “catastrophic emergency” as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government function.”

This could mean another 9/11, or another Katrina, or a major earthquake in California, I imagine, since it says it would include “localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies.”

So, basically, anything disastrous happens to any city across America, and the president assumes the reins of the entire US government. It could be a terrorist attack, or it could be a natural disaster. Either way, in case of emergency, we're screwed.

The document emphasizes the need to ensure “the continued function of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government,” it states.

But it says flat out: “The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.”

The document waves at the need to work closely with the other two branches, saying there will be “a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government.” But this effort will be “coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers.”

Yes, because the president has shown such great respect for the other branches of government up to today.

9/11 happened, and six years later, we're debating the validity of torture and whether the president has a right to spy on the American public without seeking a warrant. If another disaster happens, who knows what the hell we'll be agreeing to? All in the name of "safety", of course.

So, a Liberty University student wanted to blow up the Phelpses. I'd be lying if there wasn't some part of me, deep down, that was feeling significant cognitive dissonance over this whole thing.

Something tells me the media still won't refer to this as "terrorism", though.

Dear Democrats:

I understand you were pushed to the wall. I understand that there was no way in Hell that Bush would agree to the conditions of the bill as long as there was a timetable in it. I understand that he would probably force the troops to fight off terrorists with sticks and stones before admitting he'd failed.

Still. You buckled. You came in, and you promised us all this bullshit would change. You came in, and you promised that you speak truth to power. You came in, and you promised that you would put an end to this war. And now you've backed down.

I still have hope for you. But remember: this is still 2007. Next year will be 2008, and we all know what that means. So I suggest that if you want to survive the general onslaught that is sure to be the 2008 election cycle, then you find your resolve and use it.

Within the gay community, you will occasionally hear some panicked individual complain about the "freaks"-- the drag queens, the leather men, the flaming femmes. In their mind, we need to produce an organized, respectable face to win over the straights.

These men are somewhat misguided. While any minority getting their shit together is a cause for celebration, we've been presenting an organized face for decades. It's just that the heteronormative media loves to blow past the dedicated couple raising their kid, the heroic gay cop, and the religious leader who helps at-risk youth and land right on the stereotype. "Look at those gays!" they say. "Aren't they a riot?"

Case in point: 60 Minutes dedicates a solid piece to all the things that make someone gay and straight. And, of course, their research relies on presexual males exhibiting feminine traits and the research of a noted, discredited eugenicist quack* who claims that you can tell someone's gay because of how they talk. Funny; I seem to speak just like my straight brother, and I liked Transformers growing up. I guess I must be lying to myself about craving cock!

Second case in point: The New York Times has a piece on gay men and women serving openly in the military. Which, of course, means they have to put a photo of a drag queen in there somewhere. Not that this is anything new; if there's a piece of the gay community, there's a 50% chance it will be prefaced with a drag queen. Hell, when CNN did a piece on the (relatively plainclothed) gay pride marchers in Russia being attacked by nationalists and zealots, they opened with shots of drag queens in American gay pride parades. It's a nice photo, but can we please reach the assumption that not all gay folk dig the taffeta?

This has been your update on gay portrayals in the media. Join us next week for, "Why John Stossel Is Still A Massive Douche."

*By the way, ever since Stossel's original POS, I've seen J. Michael Bailey held up in a New York Times article and in this 60 Minutes piece. You'd think someone in the media might actually bother to do research on a man's qualifications before they talk to him. Oh, well.

By this time, I'm sure we've all seen the footage of my disgrace of a former governor calling for "double Guantanamo." Which is bad enough taken alone. But, I'd like to look at this other part of his statement:

I want them on Guantanamo, where they don’t get the access to lawyers they get when they’re on our soil.

"...where they don't get the access to lawyers they get when they're on our soil."

The Supreme Court has found that everyone, when interrogated, has the right to a lawyer. And here's Romney, saying that no, they don't, and as long as he's president, they'll be left to fend for themselves as long as they're in Guantanamo.

Like I said before, the next election won't just be a struggle to make sure the right person gets into the White House. It'll also be a struggle to make sure that the massive clusterfuck of civil liberties that was the Bush Administration does not get expanded, codified, and basically coddled. Keep the bastards out. Bring our nation back.

Y'know, it's not enough that nearly every photo that exists of Pope Benedict XVI (a.k.a., "Joey Rats") makes him look like Emperor Palpatine. He also
has to go and say shit like this:

n a speech to Latin American and Caribbean bishops at the end of a visit to Brazil, the Pope said the Church had not imposed itself on the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

They had welcomed the arrival of European priests at the time of the conquest as they were "silently longing" for Christianity, he said.

They also silently longed for smallpox, mass murder, enslavement, and the squandering of all their natural resources. Apparently, the souls of the Native Americans had this weird BDSM thing going on.

I honestly thought that, after over five hundred years of this bullshit, we could finally, openly realize just how much early European colonization efforts screwed over American natives. Then again, I guess it looks like Joey Rats loves to cling to the Columbus myth.

Jerry Falwell is dead. I wish him all the best in the afterlife.

And that, aside from my slightly snide little title, is all I have to say on that matter.

...you eat a drumstick, and your brain stops tickin'...

WASHINGTON -- In China, some farmers try to maximize the output from their small plots by flooding produce with unapproved pesticides, pumping livestock with antibiotics banned in the United States, and using human feces as fertilizer to boost soil productivity. But the questionable practices don't end there: Chicken pens are frequently suspended over ponds where seafood is raised, recycling chicken waste as a food source for seafood, according to a leading food safety expert who served as a federal adviser to the Food and Drug Administration.

Tammy Faye Messner, formerly known as Tammy Faye Bakker, has been undergoing chemotherapy treatments for inoperable lung cancer for the past few years. Recently, her doctors have announced that they're ceasing the treatment. Basically, it's up to God and Tammy Faye's immune system now.

When I was younger, I did a school project on the Metropolitan Community Church. As part of the project, I read Rev. Troy Perry's autobiography. When I got to the chapter on AIDS, I read about all these televangelists, like Robertson, Falwell, and their slimy ilk, who used the AIDS crisis to point at the homosexuals and say that God was taking suitable revenge on them. Not Tammy Faye. Tammy Faye had people suffering from AIDS-- including gay men-- on her show. She asked the audience to pray for them, not to pass judgment on them. In those times, in that atmosphere, she saw the basic humanity of the suffering, and told them that they were still God's children.

It hurts to see this happen to such a good woman. When I was back from break, I flipped to the Sundance Channel and ended up watching her son Jay's program, One Punk Under God. It was the season finale, where Tammy was dealing with problems from the treatment, and Jay wasn't even sure she would make it. I hadn't watched any of the series, hadn't even thought about Tammy Faye for months, but watching them both try to deal with the whole mess just hurt a little. I don't even know why. Perhaps it's because this woman honestly cared. She honestly read the Bible and believed in Christ's message of acceptance, even when perched amongst fire and brimstone slingers of snake oil. It just hurts to see her go through this while Pat Robertson goes through life unmolested.

Good luck, Tammy Faye. And if the Lord calls you home... well, know that it'll be for all the reasons he didn't call home Oral Roberts.

Glenn Beck had the authors of the Left Behind series on his show to discuss whether or not we're living in the End Times. Not a big deal, right? I mean, it's his radio show. It usually caters to a somewhat rightward audience that often puts great focus on theology.

Yeah, well. This was on CNN. C-N-fucking-N. A network that, last I checked, was ostensibly a news network, and thus, put things up to a certain standard. A basis which, as the Slacktivist notes, has been pretty much violated here.

All I ask is that my news networks stick to telling me the news and leave the doomsaying to Jack van Impe.

So, in case you missed it, yesterday the House finally passed a bill that would give individuals targeted because of sexual orientation the same protection as individuals targeted because of race, religion, or ethnicity. But of course, guess who's already working to shit all over it?

The White House, in a statement warning of a veto, said state and local criminal laws already cover the new crimes defined under the bill, and there was “no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement.”

As Dave points out, there are a good number of states where no hate crime legislation exists whatsoever. Furthermore, what's Bush saying when he says there's not enough evidence to "federalize" hate crimes of these types? After all, there's already federal laws on the books about hate crimes on the subject of race, religion, and ethnicity.

Oh, right. Bush doesn't care about those categories. Because if he did, or if any of his cronies or followers who open their mouth to decry the institutionalization of "thought crimes" did the same, then they would have issued legislation at least once to go against the legislation on the books. But, they haven't. And why is that?

Simple, really. We're faggots. We're not real people.

I cannot wait until this dumbfuck is out of office.

Y'know, one week ago, I could not think of any reason that might make me less likely to vote for Mitt Romney. What a difference a week makes.

Well, finals ended some time Tuesday, I got back some time yesterday, and I've finally gotten to a state that some might consider to be relaxed this afternoon. I'm back, and I'm blogging.

Now let's see what happens next...