by gekko at 10:30 AM as a "Politik Inkorrecta" poast

I just got my early primary ballot for the Republican Party -- yeah, I'm registered Repub. See, here's the thing. I'm hoping I can make my voice count. Lord knows that party needs all the help it can get, right?

It's just so important to vote, and to make an informed, conscientious decision. Briefly, here're some of my weighty and vital thoughts on the candidates:

James Creighton Mitchell, Jr -- Ogawd, guy's gonna be one a them family-money lawyer types, I just know it. I mean, I know plenty of people who have juniors and threes after their names, but only pretentious twits go around actually using those. Betcha he's got a blue-blood Mom whose maiden name was Creighton. He is just SO not getting my vote.

Mitt Romney -- So he's got my interest because of his hunk-factor. He's a guy babe, no doubt about it. But, c'mon. Mitt? And isn't his real first name "Willard"? (Note: see, I do my research!). So who wants a guy who evokes either a chunky hand covering or a disturbed loner with rats for best friends as the next Prez? So this is devilish. Vote for cute, vote for rat friend ... I'll put a tick mark there for now.

Ron Paul -- Two first names? That is so wrong.

Mike Huckabee -- Anyone here picture a blue cartoon hound dog when they hear this guy's name? I just don't think I'm ready to stomach four or more years of hearing "President Huckabee" over and over and over again, y'know?

Michael Burzynski -- So I work with a guy who has the last name "Burzynski", so this'd be almost like voting for family, right? I'll put a little tick mark next to his name for further consideration.

Sean "CF" Murphy -- "CF"? "CF"??? WTF? Anyway, his last name is the same as my dog's name, and she's evil. I'll give him a pass.

John McCain -- S'posed to be the favorite son, right? AZ Senator, but he's gotten so ... spotty. A spotty guy in the Oval Office? When we can have Mitt the babe? I don't think so.

Rudy Giuliani -- He's from New York. No. Just ... no. They may make good pizza and good bagels, and be fantastic beat cops, but being Presnut isn't a job I figure a New Yorker is ready for.

Alan Keyes -- I had hope for him. Name that's easy to hear. He's "articulate," as they say. Good looking. But then I heard about that unfortunate thing about turning his back on his daughter. Even Cheney didn't turn his back on his daughter, so Keyes isn't my guy. Ya gotta love your kids, man.

Jack Shepard -- This is sad for Jack. So very sad. See, if you pop this guy's name into Google or Wikipedia, you get corrected to "Shepherd" and directed toward British actors, criminals, and cave divers. He's such a nobody that even the peeps who did his web page couldn't be arsed to do a good job. And it's totally icky that this guy's got a pic of Jesse Jackson on his page. He's out.

This is all rather discouraging. Maybe I'll register as a Democrap because they have more interesting candidates to pick over.

2 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

by gekko at 8:57 AM as a "Politik Inkorrecta" poast

She really should be arrested, imprisoned, and put on trial.

I am speaking about the British teacher, Gillian Gibbons, who permitted her students to name a stuffed bear after the Muslim prophet Muhammed (or however you spell it).

Now, to be perfectly clear, I do not think she really did anything wrong. I am a Westerner, who has been raised in the Christian faith, and as far as I am concerned, there is nothing sacred about the name Muhammed, and even using the name "Jesus" in a less than polite fashion isn't all that horrible. I don't like hearing the man whose teachings I revere disrespected, but it isn't an offense that I feel is worthy of stripping one of their civil liberties.

But that's me, and this is here.

Ms. Gibbons went to work and live in Sudan, where the law and customs are different. She is a teacher, therefore presumably educated, and should know the local laws and customs. In any case, not knowing them is not a real defense, as they say. If you don't follow the law, then you make the choice to fall under the consequences of that decision.

There is no surprise, then, that Ms. Gibbons was arrested and that there is this huge uproar in Sudan. We all know by now that the Religion Of Peace contains a large number of bloodthirsty, primitive haters, so even the demands for brutal punishment and death are unsurprising.

If the Sudanese government shrugged and said, "oh, well, she's a Brit, so let's just send her away, unscathed," they'd be throwing aside their own laws. That'd be exactly the same as the US saying, "Oh, well, that killer is a Mexican, so let's just forget about punishing him by our laws, and send him back home."

So arrest her, yes. Imprison her, yes. Send her before a judge. All of that is something I believe needs to happen.

Here's the twist, though. Take a good, long, hard look at the law. The law she broke is not a Just Law. The punishment that the haters are screeching about is not a Just Punishment. It's time for a change. Use Ms. Gibbons' crime and her punishment to work a change in that law.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the pressure the enlightened Western world has been placing on the Sudanese Government were to effect that sort of change?

8 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

by gekko at 10:19 AM as a "Politik Inkorrecta" poast

I don't think asking for sex is a bad thing.

Oh, sure, there are extenuating circumstances to consider. For example, pressuring someone into performing a sexual act for you is a bad thing. Continually pursuing it with someone who has made it clear they don't want it is a bad thing. Using it to manipulate ... that's a borderline kind of issue for me. I think that convincing people to do things that you consider beneficial to yourself is fine so long as you're not harming the people you're convincing, and if part of that marketing campaign involves you doing sexual things for them, well, hello. That's rather what marriage is about in a way. If there's mutual benefit, and you don't mind it? Bring it on, baby.

So when Idaho Senator Whazziz Craig asked a cop to do some sex stuff with him while he was in an airport bathroom, well, on the surface that is not a bad thing. It's a guy wanting sex. If the other guy wanted to do it, well and good.

Laws that make that a bad thing should be there to protect people from unwanted sex, but sometimes they're a bit too broad. They are based more on the Puritanical view that sex is icky and for keeping private and only between sanctioned partners and just don't talk about it, 'k? Being asked to do something sexual is only bad if you're emotionally traumatized by it. Maybe if you were abused or raped, you'd legitimately fear any such sexual encounter. Flirtation between people at a bar might be just as bad as the seamy, rather icky notion of some lonely guy shoving his foot underneath a stall in a grimy bathroom.

'Course, reportedly, Craig didn't just stop with the solicitation. When the cop flashed his creds, the good Senator flashed his own and tried, limply, to muscle his way out of a sticky situation.

That's crass.

And, of course, there's the whole hoo-ha about him being "gay" and yet being an outspoken opponent against various gay privileges.

Sorry, but

a) having sex with a man does not make you gay. It means you're willing to have gay sex. There's a difference. I know people disagree, but tough.

b) being gay does not mean you have to support the political desires of a large number of gay people. There actually are gay people who do not think that gay "marriage" should be legitimized. They view "marriage" as something special, sacred, and meant to be between men and women who intend to reproduce, etc. I disagree with that, personally, but I recognize that people think that way.

So what's this rambling screed all about?

Simply: Craig isn't being railroaded because he committed a horrible sin/crime/whatever or because he's gay, or because he's a hypocrite. He is being pushed out because the perception of wrongdoing has stronger ju-ju than actual wrongdoing.

And that is, quite simply, the way the world works. It is neither good nor bad. It just is.

Don't believe me? Then consider that if you believe murder is wrong, why are some murders overlooked? If a bad guy gets gunned down in cold, murderous blood, does his murder get investigated and prosecuted with the same fervor as when a child is killed? Sometimes. But not always. Politicians in particular are doing shady, amoral things all the time and so long as they're not obvious about it, don't get caught, and are generally doing well, then leave it be. You shade what is "good" and what is "bad".

But get caught doing something normal -- like seeing if the guy next to you wants to give you a quickie hummer -- and people who are squeamish about it, people who dislike the privilege that comes with public office and who wans to whap congresscritters simply for breathing, along with people who just like to cause trouble will raise up the mob spectre and then that guy's ass is pwned.

Craig is right to step down. He isn't exactly throwing away thirty years as a politician -- he served those years and did his job so they weren't really wasted, were they? And he'll continue his life in some other aspect. I'm sure he'll take care of himself. But he committed the sin of being caught on the wrong side of public perception, and once you've gone there, you need to go.

Ask Caesar, fuck sake.

4 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

by gekko at 11:43 AM as a "Politik Inkorrecta" poast

There's some flap about the use of the term "gay" as in "that's so gay" or "They made me wear gay sweaters."

Before I commented on the kerfuffle, though, I wanted to find somewhat on the history of the word. Wikipedia has this to say:

The word originally meant "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy" and was very commonly used with this meaning in speech and literature. [...] The word started to acquire sexual connotations in the late 17th century, being used with meaning "addicted to pleasures and dissipations".

See, now, I never knew that "gay" had sexual connotations prior to being used by homosexuals to describe themselves. I grew up watching "The Flintstones." Color me innocent.

There's loads more at Wikipedia about the overall sexual connotations, but I want to pursue the movement of the word to mean "homosexual":

The use of gay to mean homosexual was in origin merely an extension of the word's sexualised connotation of "carefree and uninhibited", which implied a willingness to disregard conventional or respectable sexual mores. Such usage is documented as early as the 1920s. [...] By the mid-20th century "gay" was well-established as an antonym for "straight" (which had connotations of respectability), and to refer to the lifestyles of unmarried and or unattached people. Other connotations of frivolousness and showiness in dress ("gay attire") led to association with camp and effeminacy. [...] Using it to describe an object, such as an item of clothing, suggests that it is particularly flamboyant, often on the verge of being gaudy and garish.

If Senator McCain, who is taken to task for his comment on gay sweaters had been speaking during the 1960s or 70s, then we could reasonably assume he was using the term as a reference to gaudiness. Of course, the black sweater he's pictured in on the referenced site is hardly gaudy.

More likely, McCain was doing what Dawn and a bazillion other people, including my son I'm sad to say, do. Wiki has commentary regarding that as well:

Using the term gay as an adjective where the meaning is akin to "related to gay people, culture, or homosexuality in general" is a widely accepted use of the word. By contrast, using gay in the pejorative sense, to describe something solely as negative, can cause offence. [...] When used with a derisive attitude (e.g. "that was so gay"), the word gay is pejorative. While retaining its other meanings, it has also acquired "a widespread current usage" amongst young people, as a general term of disparagement. This pejorative usage has its origins in the late 1970s, when homosexuality was more widely seen as negative by a majority of people.

I believe this. Saying "gay also means lame" ignores the fact that the "lame" connotation came out of disparagement of homosexuality. That is its direct descent. A person may now attempt to divorce the two, but people who are sensitive to it, people who genuinely dislike homosexuality, and gay people will likely always remember that it is derived from a disparagement of gays and the gay lifestyle.

The use is changing, as words do. At the end, Wiki cites a ruling by the British Board of Governors regarding a BBC broadcast where a radio DJ used the term:

" The word 'gay' ... need not be offensive... or homophobic... The governors said, however, that Moyles was simply keeping up with developments in English usage. [...] The committee... was "familiar with hearing this word in this context." The governors believed that in describing a ring tone as 'gay', the DJ was conveying that he thought it was 'rubbish', rather than 'homosexual'. [...] The panel acknowledged however that this use... in a derogatory sense... could cause offence in some listeners, and counselled caution on its use. "

It's slowly turning into a term that means "rubbish" or "lame", just as it gradually became a word with sexual connotations, then a word co-opted by homosexuals for a non-clinical self-descriptor. Yet, it still causes offense and should be used with caution.

This isn't really about the absolute definition a word must retain. It's about feelings. If you care about how someone feels, then it pays to listen to them. When someone says "that offends me, I would think it beneath you" they are crying out to you, emotionally. You hurt them in some way -- could be small, could be large. If they matter to you, then you might modify the way you use a term. If they don't matter to you, then you might throw it back in their faces and tell them to grow the fuck up.

When the term genuinely comes to mean a generic "lame" more than it means "I am putting down a class of people", maybe it will be time to gently take those who still find offense in it to task. For now, it is still solidly understood to disparage homosexuals. It retains more than a vestige of intolerance.

10 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (1)

by gekko at 10:20 AM as a "Politik Inkorrecta" poast

Holy Butter Steamed Escargot! It seems that some Ozzies can't stomach opinions, making pounding freedom of speech using the civil courts as your meat mallet a palatable proposition.

Australian food critics were left spluttering into their napkins yesterday after a court decided that an unfavourable review of a Sydney restaurant was defamatory, opening the way for the owners to claim damages. [...] The case centres on a review of Coco Roco restaurant published in the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper in 2003. Matthew Evans, then the newspaper's chief food critic, dined at the restaurant twice and was not impressed. He said the flavour of oysters soaked in limoncello "jangled like a car crash" and that a sherry scented apricot white sauce that accompanied steak was a "wretched garnish" that he scraped off. [...] Coco Roco closed three months after the review and the owners, who had spent more than A$3m (｣1.3m) refitting the restaurant, blamed it on the reviewer, saying that customers had been put off by Evans' words. -- Review of meal that 'jangled like a car crash' deemed defamatory (Guardian Unlimited)

All I can say is that the next time one of my kids turns up his or her nose at my Caribbean Rissoto With Tofu Casserole, his or her ass will be sued and then sauteed, I swear.

Ooh, got me one hot comment!   |   TrackBack (0)

by gekko at 10:03 AM as a "Politik Inkorrecta" poast

In other blogs, folk were talking about Bush's statement concerning federal funding of the taking of lives -- abortion versus war. This was a discussion concerning Bush's forgetting to use the words "innocent, unborn" and ruminating on where one draws the line with respect to such broadbrush statements.

In a similar hyperbolic commentary, Mitt Romney was on his stump and talking about his Mormon heritage. Some great-greats had multiple wives. He wanted to try to nip this burning issue in the bud by taking a stand against it so's no one could use his heritage against him, apparently.

And I must admit, I can't imagine anything more awful than polygamy," -- Mitt Romney against 'Big Love' - People

Oh, I can think of LOADS of things way more awful than having multiple wives or multiple husbands. Ideally, in any community, the members of that community set the standards, mutually acceptable to all, by which they will conduct their personal relationships, commitments, and contracts. Of course in practice many LDS sects have been known, over time, to employ a sort of forced marriage akin to rape and slavery, where terribly young girls are forced to marry, and where marriage contracts are awarded based more on who're buddies with which leader than what is best for the community. There is no equality, no adult mutual consent.

Those situations are awful for those subjugated, I have no doubt.

But are they the most awfullest of all things ever? More awfuller than actual rape, abusive slavery? More awful than spousal abuse, or even torture? Way more awful than a culture that engages in genocide?

The beauty of hyperbole of this sort is it demonstrates a specific characteristic of the candidate, that being his or her willingness to leverage the gullibility of the listening audience, and maybe his or her tendency toward the grandiose. Like all of us are stupid, right?

Quite frankly, I tire of politicians who stump around blathering without much thought. Does Romney really really think that his great-great's way of life is worth denouncing? Are there not other issues upon which he could give us insight? Do people really care that much about this?

3 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

by gekko at 9:59 AM as a "Politik Inkorrecta" poast

[Update] Discussion on other blogs has shown me where there is some concern/misunderstanding of the intent of my comment policy. I am adamant in my belief that there is nothing unethical about this, provided I give fair warning and make clear exactly what my intentions are, and what sorts of comments will be altered. These are not the normal, fair, conversational comments people tend to leave -- the bickering sorts, the nagging sorts. Lord knows, enough people have seen me interact on a variety of forums wherein I bicker, nag, pursue, annoy, troll, irritate, and bash others. Usually deservedly, in my opinion. I welcome all that. The comments that I'm talking about are weapons and, as weapons, they are not part of ordinary discourse. Their sole intent is to cause emotional pain to people who do not deserve this sort of pain. Their intent is to disrupt free speech. So I've added stuff to my comment policy to, hopefully, clarify my position.

I've had a comment policy for some time, now. Some people are proudly proclaiming they have none -- they simply blow away the comments they dislike.

Well, that is a comment policy. It was just an unpublished one until they made the announcement.

Wotever.

A teensy bit of a kerfuffle-in-the-making has arisen over at UV's about the folks who, as part of their policy, state that they reserve the right to alter posted comments as they see fit, especially in an attempt to embarrass the commenter. Some find that a reprehensible activity. Morally abhorrent. Something along those lines.

Here's why I feel it is not:

I claim to own all content on this, my site. I pay for the site, I build it, I maintain it, and I provide it. I own what goes into it. If someone comments here, I own that comment. I have covered standard copyright law by making it clear that I claim all rights to anything anyone chooses to post here. Just as my submitting an article to a magazine confers the rights for altering and printing that article to that magazine (per their published policy).

That gives potential commenters fair notice that they lose the rights to the content they gave me. They are willing partners.

Next: I make it very clear what sorts of comments I will alter, and why. It has nothing to do with whether I agree with the commenter or not. It has little to do with flaming, insulting me, or attacking me. Mocking me. I will stand behind my words and will take whatever childish nonsense someone wants to fling at me.

But when a commenter, without provocation, defames someone dear to me, or attempts to hijack my blog to launch an attack on someone dear to me, I will reserve the right to change that hijacker's words in order to fuck with them. They want to fuck with people I care about, they can do it on their own blogs, not mine. My policy stands as a warning to peeps to behave in that respect. I have only used that method one time, and the "embarrassment" was to have the shit-sucking stalker who was hijacking my blog for his own masturbatory needs say "I love you, gekko" instead of the crap he had originally posted. I also noted that I had changed his words.

There is one other, unstated time I will make changes is when someone inadvertently posts something of my personal information that I do not care to have exposed, or if they make double-posts. I'll remove the personal information. And I'll blow away the duplicate comments.

Each person is free to handle their blogs their own way. Each person is free to decide to comment on my blog, or avoid it.

Somewhere, someone announced that it was "blog suicide" to admit to changing comments, but as far as I can see, I've had the policy in place, my blog is doing exactly what I want it to do and is still alive, and the people who tried to use my blog for their purposes don't engage in the abuse I have proscribed.

Win, win, win.

Ooh, got me one hot comment!   |   TrackBack (0)

by gekko at 11:36 AM as a "Politik Inkorrecta" poast

It's rare to find a politician who will side with sense and sensibility. I don't care which party you're talking about.

Rep. Joe Donnelly, D-Granger, and Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Evansville, were among 14 Democrats who sided with most Republicans in opposing a bill that adds sexual orientation, gender identity and disability to federal hate crimes laws and permits the federal government to help state and local governments prosecute hate crimes.

Here's the deal. Laws exist to prohibit people from harming others irrespective of the reasons for the harm. If I want to beat you up because I like beating people up, and I beat you up, I'm commiting a crime and should be punished for it. If I want to beat you up because you're gay, and I beat you up, I am commiting the same crime and I should be punished for it. I've fucking beat you up, fuck sake.

Reading my mind, making it worse for me if you are "special" when I beat you up is a heinous nanny-state Big Brother load of bull crap.

Any politicians who oppose hate crime laws and the expansion thereof should be applauded. Those who break free of the moo-cow mindset of their party affiliation, especially the Nanny-State Loving Dems should be given a fuckin' parade. God Bless the 14 Dems.

10 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

by gekko at 12:11 PM as a "Politik Inkorrecta" poast

I went to a zoo recently. I'm not talking about misc.writing. I mean an actual zoo with animals in habitats and you walk around eating slushies and gaping at the critters. There were children there, and I had to war with my innate enjoyment of some types of children and my irritation with, well, most children. At one point I attempted to convince a 10 year old boy that it would be "like, really cool to see the inside of a boa constrictor ... just hop in, dude!" but his parents scooted him away from me. That, of course, was kinda the end result I was hoping to attain so there was a happy ending for all.

But I wonder how PETA peeps would react to this new item.

A Glendale man is facing up to a year in prison in an animal cruelty case in which a 3-week-old puppy was soaked in cooking oil and fed to an 8-foot-long pet boa constrictor snake.

Two fifteen year old boys watched and described how the snake bit the pup, then started to squeeze it and they could hear the bones breaking. Then the man, 40-year-old Joseph E. Beadle, took the pup, soaked it in oil to help it slide down the snake easier, and gave it back to the snake.

He plead guilty. The snake was also found to be suffering from neglect, as they measured it and found it a few inches shorter than it should have been had it been properly nourished.

I don't get ooged out by the thought of rodents suffering that same fate. I don't care about live worms becoming food for fish. But puppies? They're cute. They'll grow up to be dogs and I enjoy the human-dog bond in my life too keenly to ever conceive of a dog as being prey. I am appalled that a human, supposedly charged with caring for canine partners, would use a dog to feed his snake and entertain a couple of kids at the same time.

However.

Would the nature documentary aspect of snake-eats-sizable-prey make the PETA nuts happy while simultaneously causing them to writhe in agony about the animals being kept and neglected and abused in the first place?

That might be, well, rilly cool, dude.

3 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

by gekko at 12:10 PM as a "Politik Inkorrecta" poast

This guy. He's a man after my own heart. I wanna have his lurve child.

We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden, delusional and other liberal, bedwetters. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that a whole lot of people were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights.

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone - not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big-screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You don't have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.

ARTICLE IX: You don't have the right to a job. All of us sure want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE X: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness - which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

-- Libertarian writer and former U.S. Senate candidate Lewis Napper ca 1993

7 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

by gekko at 3:53 PM as a "Politik Inkorrecta" poast

Move over, B'rer Pace, ol' Uncle McCain gonna take yo' place.

Senator John S. McCain offered an apology in Cedar Falls today after he used the word "tar-baby" in response to a rather arcane question from an Iowa voter about federal intervention in divorce and custody cases. The phrase is considered by some to be a racial epithet.

In response to the question, Mr. McCain said that he was not going to take a position that it was proper "to declare divorces invalid because of someone who feels they weren't treated fairly in court; we are getting into a tar-baby of enormous proportions and I don't know how you get out of that."
-- McCain Apologizes for Tar-baby Moment - NYT Blog

So we got a candidate for prez using a literary reference correctly, and some folks get ruffled because some people consider the term, irrespective of how it's used apparently, a racial epithet.

And he fucking apologizes.

When told after the event that the word was viewed by some as a racial epithet, Mr. McCain responded: "I hope that it's not viewed that way." A moment later, he apologized. "I don't think I should have used that word and I was wrong to do it."

Um, no. You SHOULD have used that term, and you were NOT wrong to do it. If you feel an urge to apologize for inadvertently offending people who think that any use of the term makes it a racial epithet, then you say "It was not my intention to offend. I understand the term to be a literary reference as immortalized by Joel Chandler Harris when he captured the spirit of African-American storytelling."

It should be noted that the stories themselves are "polarizing" in the black American community, but:

Toni Morrison wrote a novel called "Tar Baby" based on the folktale recorded by Harris. In interviews, she has claimed she learned the story from family, and owes no debt to Harris.
Black folklorist Julius Lester holds a somewhat kinder view of Harris. He sees the Uncle Remus stories as important records of Black Folklore, and has rewritten many of the Harris' stories in an effort to elevate the subversive elements over the racist ones.
-- Wikipedia

20 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

by gekko at 12:33 PM as a "Politik Inkorrecta" poast

I can almost like the guy. He seems to have a whacked, irreverent sense of humor, and he speaks a truth that, if taken as a satirical indicator, points to places where the US could stand to improve.

Not that I really think that is Senator Joseph Biden's intent, mind. I think he's just being crass and funny.

If you missed it, Biden's latest faux pas involved his description of Barack Obama as "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."

Buncha peeps are taking it to be a slam at blacks in general. Me, I take it to be a direct slam at Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Perhaps Joe forgot the wimmin folk who've also run, maybe on account of they never really poked their heads above the water for long enough to register.

Biden wasn't slamming blacks. Unfortunately, he chose to make it a race kind of thing and his comments do serve to highlight the divide, something I dislike. Yet, as I said, I could almost like the guy. He's bumbling, but he's willing to open his mouth to say what's on his mind, and that's rare in a politician.

He's wrong about one thing, though. It isn't an Indian accent you need to work at a convenience store. It's Pakistani, hello.

6 comments make for a lot of heat   |   TrackBack (0)

by gekko at 7:14 AM as a "Politik Inkorrecta" poast

A proper "no kill" shelter doesn't really avoid euthanizing animals, you know. Some animals are not adoptable. Medical issues, behavioral issues, etc. conspire to keep the dog or cat from getting along with other dogs or cats, or with people. They would live out their lives in crates, or, if the facility is spacious enough, in concrete kennels. The humane, merciful thing to do in that case is to put the animal down.

Saddam is an animal; that's been verified. He raised his sons to be animals and they were mercifully put down. To my way of thinking, however, Saddam should not be killed. Many will disagree with me, but I have several reasons.

One is that I am morally opposed to a death penalty. I do not believe we have any right to take the life of another person -- no matter how animalistic that human being behaved -- except in direct, immediate self-defense. To me, killing an incarcerated person is murder.

Yeah, yeah, I've heard all the arguments about saving money, revenge, closure for the victims, yadda, but they fail to sway me and I can readily counter them. I won't bother.

Another, more compelling reason that Saddam should not die is because it is a humane way to handle an "unadoptable animal."

Saddam, in my estimation, deserves to live out his days in a cramped concrete kennel. Little or no privacy. Mundane, bland food -- the same stuff, day after day. Little or no interaction with others. Pacing, pacing, counting off the endless days as they blur together in a mind numbing sameness. Let him live. Let him dream of his days of living in palaces, commanding armies, having the joy of a woman in his arms and let him despair.

Saddam isn't good enough for the dogs.

6 comments make for a lot of heat

by gekko at 2:55 PM as a "Politik Inkorrecta" poast

He isn't blatant about it. But you know. You know she will receive an unfavorable review because she is never given the choice kinds of jobs that will give her a chance to demonstrate her technical skills. At after-work events, he's offered opinions that make him seem politically incorrect about how he feels the world is run by Jews and how Israel is determining US policy, not Americans. He, too, feels that Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus. Interestingly enough, she is Jewish and rather proud of her heritage and takes her faith seriously. She's uncomfortable mentioning her suspicion. But it seems clear to the rest of us that he's ... he's ... well, darn. What is the word for someone who discriminates against Jews because of their culture or religion? Because of an unfounded distrust or fear of an entire class of people? "Bigotry" fits, but I just know there's a better term for it, one that is more descriptive and packs more whallop.

Or, rather, there used to be, until people started to abuse the term by applying it broad brush to those whose political leanings ran counter to their own and who also chose to question the policies and ethics of the government of Israel.

So if "anti-Semitism" is watered down to mean "someone who disagrees with Israeli Policy" then it's not a very good word to use for the dangerous and insidious hatred of Jews.

A shame.

Was a time when words had meaning.

Now Politicians seem to think that hyperbole should become the norm.

It's fashionable to call someone who disagrees with Bush a "traitor", comparing a political disagreement with the acts of someone who betrays and endangers their own nation.

It's all the rage to claim a guy who brushed up against you accidentally on a crowded bus was "sexually assaulting" you, get him in trouble with his boss.

I wish I had a word for that guy, though. Something that would convey my utter disgust for him, and that isn't already being weakened.

2 comments make for a lot of heat

by gekko at 9:00 AM as a "Politik Inkorrecta" poast

Not to mention abusing the language through thoughtless rhetoric.

Sean Bell. Twenty-three years old, gunned down by police the night before his wedding. The incident took place outside of a strip club, where Bell was killed (50 bullets) and two of his friends seriously wounded. The news reports I've read so far indicated these men struck an officer with their car, and repeatedly ran into a police minivan. Reports also say the police feared one of the men was going for a gun, and that there might have been a fourth person among them who'd been implicated in a drug raid that took place earlier that week. In interviews, the companions and witnesses claim they did not see badges or hear any commands from the police that indicated the shooters were police. According to the reports I've read, none of those shot at were armed, all deny there was a fourth person among them. The incident took place in Queens.

Based on the facts I have at hand, I am of course disturbed. I can understand the police reaction to this seeming attack by the three men. I don't know why they fired so many rounds. The point is that the facts in this case are not necessarily all clear, or all known. That they fired fifty rounds into Bell is frightening, though. As one woman said later, "You don't even shoot animals fifty times!"

All three of the men are black. That shouldn't be important, except that it is important to why I'm mentioning this.

The five officers involved in the shooting are either black, Hispanic, or white. A mix, in other words. Not a "race" thing, here. That, too, is important.

That said, a protest march was organized and held and, of course, the right reverend Al Sharpton was there. Man won't miss any opportunity to pound his chocolate pulpit.

"They took his life, but we can't let them take his legacy," the Rev. Al Sharpton said to cheers and "Amens" from the overflow crowd at the Community Church of Christ.

Say huh? What's this guy's legacy? Twenty three, yet unwed, barely begun life and he's left behind a legacy?

Wow. I'm impressed. Must've been some guy!

I wonder why "they" would want to take away this legacy?

But let's listen further to what our intrepid man of gawd has to say:

"We must give Sean a legacy. A legacy of justice, a legacy of fairness. We don't hate cops. We don't hate race. We hate wrong."

. . . oh.

Bell didn't yet HAVE a legacy that "they" cannot take from him. So they'll cook one up and hand it to him, post-humously.

It's a nice legacy. I think we all should own it.

But right now some poor dead man and his family are serving as yet another bullet in Sharpton's gun. That irritates the fuck outta me, because I do not for one moment believe that Mr. Sharpton has a desire for fairness and racial equity.

3 comments make for a lot of heat

by gekko at 2:12 PM as a "Politik Inkorrecta" poast

Ya keep hearing about the poor in America, and starvation. While everyone ought to beware of statistics and how they are used, and be aware that not all broad categorical indications apply to individual cases, the fact appears to remain that "poverty" in America is not what most would consider "poverty" in a world-wide comparison.

Further, the American poor tend to be the ones swelling (sorry) the obesity statistics.

The principal nutrition-related health problem among the poor, as with the general U.S. population, stems from over-consumption, not the under-consumption, of food. While overweight and obesity are prevalent problems throughout the United States, they are found most frequently among poor adults.

I mention this because I just got finished grocery shopping. I have had to become a bit more ca$h conscious of late and clipping coupons, looking for sales, and using those irritating and ubiquitous "club savings cards" that most grocery store chains offer to give you "savings" (read: reductions from their inflated pricing in exchange for capturing your consumer data).

I admit to eating frozen meals for lunches at the office -- the "diet" types, like the Weight Watchers branded "Smart Ones"© and the Stouffer's brand "Lean Cuisine"© types. Reduced fat, reduced calorie, increased fiber, nutrition, and you pay a small price in terms of added sodium. They're easy to pop into the microwave at work, and they satisfy me. One meal and I sometimes add a piece of fruit for my meal enhancing pleasure. They also help me keep my eating habits (aka "diet plan") in line.

So, when I got coupons for some of these and they happened to also be offered on sale for the "club" members of a local grocery store, I was in penny-pincher heaven!

Turns out I paid $1.79 per meal on a bunch of these babies. They're regularly $3.50, in my area.

Rewind to a discussion I had with someone who qualifies for food stamps. She is about 320 pounds. She is what the US government defines as "poor." She spends about $6.00 on lunches and thinks this is a bargain. Her lunches usually involve french fries.

I'm thinking -- dangerous thing for someone like me -- that as long as we have this damned Welfare program, and our taxes are indeed going to support the poor in our nation, and as long as our insurance rates and taxes for Medicaid are high because of this obesity epidemic everyone natters on about, and as long as the poor in the US are among the hugest of huge peeps -- would it not be a glorious plan to work the food stamp program so as to require recipients to purchase the diet-y heat 'n eats?

Whether you're plump or a stick-figure, can you really look down your nose THAT much at $1.79 per, on sale?

Okay, you can, because haut cuisine they are not, but when your choice is a packet of Chicken McGreaseballs and Coke, or a Lean Cuisine Angel Hair Shrimp dinner, why on earth it's kind of a no-brainer to me.

And if you ARE obese ... heck! You can diet and save money!

7 comments make for a lot of heat

by gekko at 10:38 AM as a "Politik Inkorrecta" poast

Let me see if I have this right:

They knew they were walking into a battle zone.
They gathered for the purpose of aiding the embattled soldiers.
They were not (?) flying any Red Crescent, Red Cross, aid, or white flag indicating their peaceful and/or humanitarian purposes.

They came together because their leaders urged them to.

And in spite of the Israeli soldiers attempting to NOT kill them, some of the Palestinian women in the embattled Gaza strip were killed, several others wounded.

And I am supposed to feel outraged by this, yes?

Because they were unarmed women, yes?

Excuse me if, while I mourn the fact that human beings have been killed, I do not feel any outrage, as their actions made them combatants and they knowingly chose to risk death and injury by going where there were artillery and bullets flying about.

's'all I have to say about that.

8 comments make for a lot of heat

by gekko at 8:20 PM as a "Politik Inkorrecta" poast

In an explanation for why Muslims feel insulted, Rami G. Khouri, director of the Issam Fares Institute at the American University of Beirut, and editor-at-large of the Beirut-based Daily Star, writes of how religion is the center of being for Muslims living in a chaotic, despotic world.

He writes:

So when the leading Christian figure of the entire world chooses to refer to an obscure Medieval Byzantine emperor's remarks disparaging Islam and the Prophet Mohammad, one can understand why some Muslims would be deeply angered, even threatened. The Pope should be better advised on Muslim sensitivities. How would he react if the world's top Muslim religious leaders recommended screening the DaVinci Code movie in all schools?
-- Middle East Online

I can understand why people get angry when their faith is insulted, even if they misperceive the nature of the insult. I hear too often people angrily reacting to words they did not understand.

I believe, however, that how the Pope would feel if the world's Muslim leaders recommended screening the Da Vinci Code in schools everywhere is probably nowhere near the level of what those who called for bloodshed, for breaking the cross, for murder, mayhem, etc. apparently felt. The Pope may or may not be dismayed by such a laughable call. The Pope may or may not even be angry. The Pope may laugh at it. After all, the Pope is a religious leader in a relatively free society and is a mature and adult man who is, apparently, not given to hideously childish displays of temper. The Pope is not prone to beheading nuns.

Nor is most of Western Christian society.

That is the difference.

The Muslims of the world may be angry; I am not mystified by their anger or hurt. I've seen it elsewhere and when.

When they take that anger and use it to justify murder and torture, THEN I take issue.

Perhaps Mr. Khouri needs to be a little better versed in how civilized people ought to behave, rather than apologizing for the behavior of those who call for blood as poor troubled souls who only need the understanding of the Pope.

3 comments make for a lot of heat

by gekko at 9:53 AM as a "Politik Inkorrecta" poast

Stand up. Unite. And denounce this. Denounce this, too.

Each time your "brothers" do this evil, denounce it. Point your fingers at them. State that their ways are evil, and not your ways. Proclaim that you, you renounce the path of violence and harm and that your religion will not be used by these evil, satanistic extremists to promote their evil, satanistic ways.

Do that. Because until enough of you denounce this publicly and loudly, the way so many Americans and Christians denounce the violent acts of their cultures, until you do that, then the words Pope Benedict quoted from so many centuries ago still hold resoundingly true today, and your religion is a religion of blood.

Take control of your religion. Christians have done it. Jews have done it. You can, too.

Be strong. Be brave. I dare you.

8 comments make for a lot of heat

by gekko at 8:33 AM as a "Politik Inkorrecta" poast

When I last looked at a globe in some detail -- a few weeks ago as a matter of fact -- I was able to verify for myself that China, Africa, and South America comprise a significant proportion of the entire world.

"This insidious, creeping pandemic of obesity is now engulfing the entire world," Paul Zimmet, chairman of the meeting of more than 2,500 experts and health officials, said in a speech opening the weeklong International Congress on Obesity. "It's as big a threat as global warming and bird flu."
-- My Way News - Health Experts: Obesity Pandemic Looms

I also noted, while gazing at the globe (if you must know, it was a beautiful collector's work of art, with mother of pearl and lapis inlay, and could have been mine, mine, mine for a mere $300), that India, and the Middle East, and Russia, and all the bits and pieces of what used to be the Soviet Union are also a part of the world.

"This insidious, creeping pandemic of obesity is now engulfing the entire world," Paul Zimmet, chairman of the meeting of more than 2,500 experts and health officials, said in a speech opening the weeklong International Congress on Obesity. "It's as big a threat as global warming and bird flu."
-- My Way News - Health Experts: Obesity Pandemic Looms

I cannot help but note that while Australia, Gr. Britain and especially the US seem to be globally (snerk!) complaining of obesity and the ill health effects of same, I've yet to hear Nigeria or the good folk of Uttar Pradesh, or Kuala Lumpur were concerned with obesity, when it comes to health risks.

It is possible that Mr. Zimmet, bless his heart, was waxing a tad hyperbolic.

OTOH, this, is a damned funny representation of this engulfing pandemic.

12 comments make for a lot of heat

by gekko at 8:50 AM as a "Eruditus Opinionatus" poast

I've never been a fan of "hate crime" laws. I always felt that most murders are, in fact, crimes of hate and that the existing laws ought to be sufficient to punish those guilty of them. In spite of the wisdom of my viewpoint, however, we have hate crime laws, which are, presumably, laws that make it worse for the offenders of capital crimes when they commit their crimes out of racial or ethnic hatred.

Apparently, though, you can only be guilty of hating some demographic groups. Jews need not apply.

The man accused of barging into the offices of the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle and killing one woman and wounding five others will be prosecuted on state murder and attempted-murder charges rather than federal hate-crime laws, officials said. -- The Seattle Times: Local News: Community responds with sorrow, unity

I don't know why they're not pursuing this hate-filled man, who admitted to hating Jews, who admitted to seeking out a Jewish center so that he could kill Jews. Maybe they don't want the feds involved.

Or maybe it's because they want us all to be sensitive to the plight of the poor Islamic Arab-American who is permitted to hate. And, maybe, after all, it's not "hate" if it's just Jews.

Maybe.

I gotta say, I will be delighted to retract and amend my accusation if I learn that there actually is a solid reason for not seeking to punish this man for a "hate crime".

But so long was we have those laws, and so long as they presume to have meaning, don't you think they ought to be used?

3 comments make for a lot of heat

by gekko at 9:18 AM as a "Politik Inkorrecta" poast

While back on the newsfroup in which I participate, we all had one of our bazillions of fistfights over "indoctrinating" young people. The conservatives are all against the indoctrination of children in the "liberal" manifesto that they see going on in public skools. The libs are all unhappy about the "indoctrination" of youth in horrible religion stuff, when they get to see little Johnny pray before a test or have the teach say "Under God" or something.

It made me think about indoctrination, though. We do. Indoctrinate our young. In our ideals. How can we not?

My buddy PJ had a comment in her insightful and wonderful poast about Freedom on her blog (link below):

But still, even reciting the Pledge day after day after day didn't really make me think about what I was saying, or what it actually meant. I didn't feel patriotic reciting it, and it didn't prompt me to think about freedom. It prompted me to think about how I wished we could get it over with because I was bored. -- pj's place

The idea that repetition will indoctrinate one in an ideal is common, but PJ's right. That alone won't do much for you. Same with repeating the Lord's Prayer, something that goes on in mainstream Christian churches without thought. And the Apostle's Creed (or variations of same). We don't even stop to think about the words.

That was brought home one day when one of the pastors read an insightful commentary where the writer walked, line by line, through the Prayer, as though God had been sitting at a table across from him and helping him think about it.

We'll mouth anything we're fed, and give it no thought, and that kind of thing does nothing to indoctrinate us into whatever it is supposed to promote. We just say it and move on.

It isn't until something significant happens that those words might then hit home.

It's just prep work.

Letting Johnny pray in class isn't going to turn Hamad into a Christian. It isn't going to poison Libby Rawls away from her daddy's atheism. Reciting the Pledge isn't going to make Dick, Jane, or Spot believe any more firmly in what their country stands for and Jane just might grow up to want to bomb some building in East Bumfuck, USA.

So what are these recitative icons good for?

I happen to like both the Prayer and the Pledge when I stop to ponder them, because I have taken some time to know their histories, their stories, and what the lines mean when taken individually and then pasted back together into their context. That's the only way this kind of "indoctrination" will work -- if you also educate and have your students (young and old) stop and think.

To do that, they also have to know about the alternatives. They have to know what it means to be a student in a despotic nation (as PJ's wonderful post described) and they have to know what other people believe, and why this belief is what's being promoted as the "correct" belief.

Indoctrination is pfui. It's what the Nazis did. It's what those who fear do.

Education is what we, as Americans, should be all about.

4 comments make for a lot of heat

by gekko at 7:07 AM as a "Politik Inkorrecta" poast

Wot a weenie! I've been leaning toward McCain as a voice (at last!) of balance and tolerance who actually can capture the views of the real America.

Potential presidential candidate John McCain says he longer considers evangelist Jerry Falwell to be one of the "agents of intolerance" that he criticized during a previous White House run. [...] "We agreed to disagree on certain issues, and we agreed to move forward," McCain said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." -- McCain Softens Language on Jerry Falwell

Yah. Well, John, babe, you were right back when you said,

"Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right."

So unless you can point to something Falwell has actively done that has caused him to flip flop, then you, Johnny boy, are a moral coward.

So does that mean he truly does capture the voice and views of America?

9 comments make for a lot of heat

by gekko at 11:05 AM as a "Politik Inkorrecta" poast

Somebody help me understand this, please. If you, like, have studied the Muslim philosophical viewpoint, and how they can rationalize all this, then chime in. Willya?

So they're all protesting, setting fires, sawing off heads, or wotever, across the globe, uttering dire warnings of "chasms" and "gulfs" between Islam and the West. The evil, evil West.

I can kinda understand that because within my history at least, the Muslims who've made the news have always been ones who protest pretty much anything with loud, violent reaction, with screams of outrage that the West is evil and satanic and in need of destruction, yadda yadda.

But here's where I'm starting to lose understanding and I fault myself entirely because I am, or fancy myself as being, a rational and logical person, mostly. Kinda.

So the root of their outrage, they claim, is because there's some Islamic law, based on some aged interpretation of the Qu'uran, that says Thou Shalt Not Draw Pictures Of Mohammed. And, lo, there are these wretched Danish cartoonists just going ahead and drawing pictures of Mohammed -- not just any pictures, but pictures that mock him, or mock the faith system he launched, or mock the violence that so many justify through Mohammed's teachings.

And the reason they don't want pictures of Mohammed is because Mohammed presumably felt that images of real people lead to idolatry. Don't want to be worshiping no saints or prophets, like those damned Christians do. Just Allah. 'k?

So *Muslims*, who are probably prone to maybe, by mistake, worshipping Mohammed if they see a picture of him, shouldn't oughta be creating pictures of Mohammed.

So it wasn't Muslims who created the Pics O The Prophet, right? It wasn't Islamic newspapers that reprinted them, right? It wasn't predominantly Islamic nations that are home to the newspapers that reprinted them or the cartoonists who created them.

Right?

So what's the beef, other than yet another excuse to behave with vile, life-sucking, hyperemotional, violent lunacy?

A mature, solid