Brief Essays With Pictures

If you start your column out by writing, “Listen, I’m a small-government conservative,” and you then advocate that the government ban certain cooking substances…well…something isn’t clicking.

Want to sell sex toy in Texas? Of course you do. Unfortunately, you’re legally allowed to do so, because Christian sensibilities are so deeply offended whenever they discover that somebody, somewhere, is enjoying themselves. And so it goes that the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from a Texas man being prosecuted for the horrible crime of promoting sex toys.

 At some point, the desperate desire of some people to ruin life for everybody else will have to dissipate, won’t it? Won’t it?

Let’s not forget that it is Republicans who have a firm grasp on strong moral values. In no way does the revelation that a Congressman from Florida sent explict sexual messages to a 16-year-old boy suggest anything but the GOP’s firm stance on family values.

Morons.

…then the entire fabric of our civilization will crumble. That’s why the school board in Frisco Texas fired a teacher for taking his students to an art museum where there was one, single nude sculpture. Way to go you Christian morons.

My friend Aaron addressed my recent post about the Ozarks molestations. The basic point that’s he’s trying to make is this: “Those molesters were crazy Christians, and I’m not crazy, so I shouldn’t have to take any responsibility for their actions!” Which is fine, and correct. He shouldn’t be held responsible for the behavior of others.

If only he was willing to apply the same standards to…say…everybody else. In the post itself, he claims that all Muslims - he uses the term “they” - called for the death of the Pope. This obviously isn’t true. In his arguments against gay marriage, he suggests that the minority of gays who want to get married should be held responsible for the majority of gays that don’t. And here’s Aaron pontificating on whether atheists are suitable parents.

Thanks for the lecture, but the pot’s calling the kettle black. And incidentally, if you read my original post, I think I was fairly clear about the unfairness of refusing Christian parents children based on the actions of a few…the same position I take on gay parents.

You know those Christians who insist that we can’t allow gays to adopt children because those children will inevitably be molested? You know, these morons?

Well I can only assume that we’ll see an equally aggressive push by those same pro-child activists to prevent Christians from having children. We knew the situation with Christians was bad enough after the rampant Catholic molestations; now that these molestation bug is catching with other Christians, it seems quite clear that the only way we can protect children to prevent Christians from having access to them.

And since anti-gay adoption measures aren’t based on cruel hatred, but rather the logic of protecting children, we can all agree that it is at least equally logical to deprive Christians of having children. Since they’ll molest them.

Or maybe what I’m proposing isn’t logical, but based instead on my rabid Christian hatred. Just like those who oppose gay adoption.

The Parents Television Council is predictably flipping its shit about two women saying “tits over ass” at the Emmys. It’s worthless discussing the myriad of reasons why the PTC is wrong (kids can handle it, change the channel, don’t watch the Emmys in the first place, quit making decisions for the rest of us), so instead, let’s figure out who came up with “tits over ass.” What a phrase.

It is being alleged that Christian Inuits in northern Canada destroyed ancient petroglyphs because they were:

1. Emitting toxic radiation, thus endangering the Inuit children?
2. Leaking chemicals in the local groundwater, thus endangering the Inuit children?
3. Possessed by the devil?

If you chose 1 or 2, you must not know Christianity well enough.

I might reserve this box strictly for discussions of religion. Long story short, I hate it, a fact that I’m constantly reminded of by the news. One of the better places to roundup evidence against religion’s continued existence is Fark, which today offered us the story of a woman fired by her church for being…well…a woman. Women aren’t capable of teaching men, apparently. (You’ll excuse me if I am taken aback at the shocking idiocy of this story.)

Meanwhile, polygamists in Utah sent their daughters to Salt Lake City for a pro-polygamy rally. The children spoke of the goodness of growing up in polygamous families. Not that their opinion matters - polygamy is *wink*illegal*wink* in Utah. You see, the law concerning polygamy is on the books, but it is only enforced if authorities fear for the safety of children. Which means that polygamy is de facto legal. (Predictably, the Christians who are horrified by homosexual marriage can’t muster the energy necessary to decry their fellow polygamous social conservatives.)

Look, I’m sure that religion, at one point or another, accomplished something. But at this point, in this country, it seems to only function as a tool of socially regressive ideas who have come and long since past.

To read the Associated Press’s recent report on diversity in America, you’d think that West Virginia’s population is the whitest, and least diverse, in the country. In fact, here’s the researched quote:

West Virginia is the exception, with its struggling economy and little history of attracting immigrants.

Look, even a casual examination of West Virginia’s history reveals a state founded and settled by immigrants, attracted to the abundunt jobs available in our mines. That our economy has subsequently collapsed doesn’t change the fact that immigrants have long settled within our borders.

What the reporter meant - that Latino immigrants haven’t chosen West Virginia - is true. But that doesn’t change the fact that the idiot in question clearly didn’t do his research, a regular occurence when the national media discusses my home state. And although I ought to be used to it, I’m not.

Parents apparently think that it is a good idea to buy their children cashmere clothing. I don’t know who these parents are mind you - but according to the article, they exist, and now in larger numbers than ever before. What’s happening to this country?

Why is a three year old being outfitted in cashmere anything? Kids need to be dressed in cheap shorts and t-shirts until they’re old enough to carry on conversations, and even then they only need one fancy outfit in their closets. Why shorts and t-shirts? Because kids should bombing around all over damnation, getting into trouble, scraping their knees, and getting dirty. Doing anything else just isn’t good for children.

As I read what I’ve written, I realize that I’m becoming completely unhinged. At this point, logic and sense are going out the window as my skin turns green and my shorts turn to purple. But what are parents thinking? Why do parents think its a good idea to deprive their children of childhood? And for Christ’s sake, what sort of adults are we going to end up with when these cashmered brats grow up?

At some point in America’s future, the parents who have been totally sissifying their kids will realize what horrible damage they’ve done. Or at least, I hope they will, because kids who wear cashmere just aren’t kids.

So parents took their kids to the zoo, and proceeded to lose track of them. One of them climbed over several barriers and stuck her hand into a meerkat exhibit. Feeling threatened, the meerkats bit the girl. Unfortunately for the meerkats, Minnesota state laws required euthanasia of animals if…

…an individual refuses rabies vaccination, a process involving “six painful shots.” This particular girl refused the shots, and then got her parents to back her. As a result, the meerkat family was put down.

I’m not going to judge the girl. Or her family. But I am going to say that not forcing your daughter to put up with the realities of her idiotic behavior is obscene. She should have been forced to watch the meerkats die, just to understand what it was, exactly, that her selfish decision resulted in. Today’s parents are such fucking suckers for their kids, so insistent that everything be done to protect their fragile little existences. As a result, the world’s less five cute meerkats, and plus one little girl who has just learned that she will always get her way.

As I’ve stated on numerous occaisons, I don’t like social conservatives. This is in part because they’re anti-markets - “Ban the sale of pornography, even if there is an enormous market for it!” - and in part because they hate America. I was reminded of this visceral hatred the other day when a woman I was at a bar with proudly declared her conservatism. I expressed skepticism, and asked her several questions concerning her beliefs.

“There’s such a thing as traditional values,” she explained, before asking me to stop talking about this because, “whenever I’m at a bar getting drunk, somebody asks me about this and it turns into a huge fight.”

Which I couldn’t believe. Who could doubt the socially conservative credentials of a woman getting bombed at a bar before 7:00 on a Tuesday night? Needless to say, I stopped asking my questions. But later, I was talking to a friend of mine about some choice movies I’d acquired recently at a yardsale: Women’s Penetentiary and Women’s Prison Massacre. I told him that these movies were largely excuses for people to put tits on film.

“What’s that Sam? Do you need some tits on film?” The social conservative turned toward me, saying seductively I guess, although I think more likely that she was a small person on her third big beer.

There’s something hypocritical about proclaiming to be a social conservative when it comes to other people’s actions. In other words, if you enjoy giving and getting blowjobs (or anal sex), don’t turn around and support sodomy laws. And if you enjoy getting bombed on a Tuesday afternoon? Don’t insist that you oppose the use of drugs; you clearly don’t object to the use of drugs. You object to the use of drugs that you don’t personally use. That’s a big difference.

And it isn’t that I’m angry, it’s just that there are an awful lot of socially conservatives who propose legally limiting everybody else’s behavior while continuing to go apeshit crazy themselves. That’s hypocritical at best, and downright unAmerican at worst.

Hey, you won’t often find me discussing George W. Bush in positive terms, but let’s face facts: Hezbollah should stop doing this shit. They’re a bunch of dirty terrorists with no legitimate beefs. And even if it was an organization with any legitimate complaints, launching rockets at a civilian population renders those complaints, coming from that organization, totally without merit. In other words, don’t complain about being oppressed when you’re specifically targeting women and children.

The liberals who can find it in their heart to support these jerkoffs boggle my imagination. Hezbollah, given half the chance, would kill the gays, burqa the women and make the lives of everybody it controlled totally miserable. Why that’s even up for debate is simply beyond me.

Boy Scouts in Berkeley, California recently sued the Berkeley Marina, demanding that they be allowed to dock boats there for free, despite their attitude toward gays. Yesterday, the California Supreme Court slapped the Boy Scouts across the mouth, telling them that they can implicitly discriminate against gays by maintaining their relationships with the national Boy Scouts, or they can have their free docking priveleges at the marina, but they can’t have both.

Recently, we’ve seen columnists like Maggie Gallagher demanding special treatment for religious organizations who similarly discriminate against gays. Gallagher was defending the rights of religious organizations to refuse adoptive services to gay parents; the Boy Scouts maintains the right to refuse gays. Advocates for their continued special treatment maintain that organizations shouldn’t be forced into tolerating homosexuals.

What they’re ignoring is that nobody, anywhere, is forcing these organizations to stop discriminating. These organizations are simply being told that, if they believe so deeply in discriminating against gays, they should be willing to give up whatever governmental support they’d been receiving. And quite frankly, I’m not entirely sure what the problem is. This is just another example of individuals (and organizations) being held responsible for their actions. And there is no reason why the government should subsidize organizations that insist on treating individuals differently simply because they’re gay.

So quite frankly, the Sea Scouts in Berkeley, and that adoption service in Massachusetts, can go to hell. They ought to be willing to sacrifice to defend their ignorant beliefs, and there’s no reason why decent taxpayers ought to subsidize hatred.

Needless to say, you can rest assured that social conservatives won’t stand for this one bit…later today, I’ll link to the columns decrying the unfair treatment that these poor discriminators are receiving.