Completely Unnecessary

Just finished watching the latest in the series of Palin/Couric interviews. You’d think at this point that Palin would just coldcock Couric anytime she saw her coming. But no.

Anyway, there was nonsense about gays (it’s a choice!), vague nonsense about feminism (everything’s equal!) and a fairly good explanation of her position on evolution in schools (she believes in creationism, but science is for science class - literally the best answer I’ve ever heard her give).

Things broke down a little bit during Couric’s question about Palin’s stance on emergency contraception (transcript from CBS):

Couric: Some people have credited the morning-after pill for decreasing the number of abortions. How do you feel about the morning-after pill?

Palin: Well, I am all for contraception. And I am all for preventative measures that are legal and save [sic - safe], and should be taken, but Katie, again, I am one to believe that life starts at the moment of conception. And I would like to see …

Couric: And so you don’t believe in the morning-after pill?

Palin: … I would like to see fewer and fewer abortions in this world. And again, I haven’t spoken with anyone who disagrees with my position on that.

Couric: I’m sorry, I just want to ask you again. Do you not support or do you condone or condemn the morning-after pill.

Palin: Personally, and this isn’t McCain-Palin policy …

Couric: No, that’s OK, I’m just asking you.

Palin: But personally, I would not choose to participate in that kind of contraception.

Okay, so what we have here is Palin not understanding how the morning-after pill (and contraception, more generally) works.

Like many forms of birth control, EC can either block ovulation or prevent fertilization - but it can also prevent implantation. If you believe life begins at conception, odds are that most forms of birth control - including EC - aren’t for you.

Not to mention that she’s ‘all for [contraception]‘, but ‘would not choose to participate’ in EC.

For the last time - EC is just a megahit of birth control.

If you’re pro-contraception, it makes no sense to be anti-EC. If you’re anti-EC, it doesn’t really cotton that you’re pro-contraception.

And finally, contraception is, of course, just about the easiest way to lower abortion rates.

Jezebel has the video embedded and more quotes from the interview.

Vaguely Related

• Missouri Lawmakers Focus on Plan B
• Bush Admin Going Ahead with HHS Rule Changes

In case you haven’t heard, the newest iteration of the Federal Marriage Amendment was re-introduced to Congress this week.

The amendment would, of course, protect the sacred institution of marriage from the destructive ways of teh homos and their big gay marriages.

The obvious need for such an amendment is given extra patriotic flare through the sponsorship of our nation’s two staunchest defenders of sacred unions, Senators Larry Craig and David Vitter.

Larry Craig (R-ID), as you may remember, sprung to fame last summer after attempting to solicit sex in the men’s toilets.

David Vitter (R-LA) is equally famous for hiring prostitutes.

I wish there some kind of bell or buzzer that we, as a nation, could collectively ring (or buzz) in moments of extreme irony.

It’d relieve some of the sputtering from the cognitive dissonance.

Links:
Pretty much everybody.

Vaguely Related

• Blogging Means Never Having To Say You’re Sorry
• The Cheney Impeachment Response

…for not posting.

I mean, it does. I know that more than one of you check this blog regularly for new and (ahem) insightful content.

But I can’t control your poor life choices.

So I’ve been tempted this week to blog about the lovely and soul-inspiring weddings of biddies - because obviously that’s awesome.

I think if you can’t be happy for 80+-year-old women getting married you don’t really understand what life is about. There’s fundamental level at which you don’t understand happiness.

[Ed. note - Um, Firefox 3, vaguely appealing though it is, does not seem to have incorporated spellcheck in a timely manner. This is absolutely disastrous for your editor, who can't spell her way out of a very small shoebox.] [Oh thank crap, it kicked back in; I had spelled disastrous wrong. I'm more of a big picture kind of girl.]

Anyway, I’ve been sick and also working/marking/watching Angel, so it’s really a grab bag of reasons why I’ve lacked the wherewithal to fulfill the blogging duties that - I will remind you - come with little to no financial reward.

I had something to say. I think it was this:

I know the Administration only has a short number of months (yay!) left in office, but this doesn’t mean that they should drive down their game.

It will potentially frighten several of you to learn that my father is a Republican. Not of the truly alarming variety - he just believes in lower taxes, etc, etc. (whereas I believe in stealing from the rich, etc., etc.).

Anyway, he sends me an article last week in which George Will (displaying the youngest picture GenXers have ever seen of George Will) is all about drilling in ANWAR and everywhere offshore because the Chinese are already doing it.

Eh, they’re not.

But, if the story gets repeated enough times, it looks like good enough impetus for Bush to advocate drilling off all our coastlines a few days later. The NYT, however, is not so impressed with that, considering it won’t lower gas prices until 2030.

But hey - talking points trotted out in the press ten days before they become ‘policy’ is just typical. Could these guys try anymore? I mean, where are those bold policy suggestions of yore? Isn’t there a country we should think about invading?

Oh, or is it just that we’ve gotten lazy, considering the oil contracts with one that we’ve already invaded?

Personally, I’m happier thinking about old ladies getting married.

Congrats to them and everyone taking the plunge (especially to Elissa and Keith, who I love with all my heart… even though they’re not gay. It’s not, like, a definite criteria for my support of your union).

Vaguely Related

• Justice Kennedy Back In Fine Form
• Zimbabwe Election Redux

First of all - yay! CA’s Supreme Court upheld the right of same-sex couples to marry. Awesome news, especially in light of previous setbacks in the courts for gay-rights advocates.

Surprising no one, anti-gay activists are upset and moving to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November. (For his part, Governor Schwarzenegger said he would not support an amendment to overturn the court’s ruling.)

The court cited an 1948 ruling overturning a ban on interracial marriage, noting that all citzens must be treated as equal under California law. This doesn’t sit well with anti-gay activist and lawyer, Robert Tyler:

“Where is the court going to rationally limit marriage if its not a union between a male and female?” said Mr. Tyler. “There is no evidence to establish that a homosexual lifestyle is an immutable characteristic such as race.”

Um… that’s interesting. So race is genetic and homosexuality a lifestyle/construct. I was under the impression that current thinking was just about completely the opposite. I mean, I know homosexuality is always going to be a ‘lifestyle’ for these guys, but I’m sure even Mr Tyler has bi/tri/etc.-racial friends.

So good luck to Mr Tyler, but even better luck to the thousands of happy couples who will be able to marry just 30 short days from now.

Gay Couples Rejoice at Ruling [NYT]

Vaguely Related

• Blogging Means Never Having To Say You’re Sorry
• Another One Bites the Dust

Immigration officers are trading sex for documents. The NYT has the story, as well as what I imagine to be quite a tacky audio recording.

Also, Bill Richardson endorsed Obama. Does this mean that I’ve technically donated to the Obama campaign now? I’m glad to see Richardson’s quirky charm on the campaign trail once again.

As long as he doesn’t run into Melisa Etheridge again, everything should be fine.

Mild LOST spoiler inside: (more…)

Vaguely Related

• The Endorsement You’ve Been Waiting For*
• Palin Abuses Her Authority, McCain His Responsibility

ThinkProgress is reporting that it looks as though President Bush (see: biggest disappointment) plans to recess appoint Dr. James Holsinger as Surgeon General.

Holsinger is anti-gay, to the point of setting up a church to minister ‘to people who no longer wish to be gay or lesbian”. As Surgeon General, Dr. Holsinger would have the power to cure all the homos. Amen.

His nomination hasn’t gotten a vote in the Senate yet because he refuses to fill out a follow-up questionnaire put to him by the health committee; he’s over two months late in responding.

Yet, the good doctor resigned from his the board of trustees of Asbury Seminary in Wilmore, Ky and is ‘telling people the president plans to appoint him to the post anyway once the Congress goes into its holiday recess, a well-connected Wilmore source says.’

If he were appointed by Bush, he could serve until the end of the next Congress, after the election and just before Bush’s term ends. Two weeks ago, Peter Pitts, president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, a nonprofit think tank based in Washington and New York, said he thought that a recess appointment would be ‘too divisive’, rendering it unlikely.

Not only to I think it’s likely, I think it’s exactly what he would have done with Mukasey (or someone worse).

Links:
Homophobic Surgeon General Nominee Reveals Bush Plans To Recess Appoint Him [Think Progress]
Surgeon general nominee resigns from seminary board [Bible Belt Blogger]
Surgeon general nominee in limbo [Courier-Journal]

Vaguely Related

• Colorado Initiative Would Grant Personhood to Embryos
• You Think Gay Pride, Bimbo

So, it seems as though this might be a joke - the most convincing evidence is that there are rosary beads on the website and those aren’t so popular with the Evangelistic crowd. It’s still amazing, though.

I keep thinking about things like the (god help me) Gray’s Anatomy fracas and how much we allow gays to be battered about in the media. For context, one actor on the show has repeatedly called another actor “faggot,” even at the Golden Globes when denying that he ever said it. There are too many clauses in that ridiculous sentence, but it’s kind of a ridiculous story. Isaiah Washington seems unable to keep his mouth shut, despite glares, angry comments, and punches in the face from his fellow cast members. I keep thinking about what would happen if the tables were turned, though. Washington, the offending actor is black; somehow, I think coverage of this story would be pretty different if it had gone down the other way. And I think Knight would be out of a job.

Then again, this video isn’t really about gays at all; it’s really about an intolerant community. I would probably laugh at a send up of white supremacists, too. But I think one could argue (as I will attempt to do inarticulately here in a second) that a parody of the KKK is harder to do because the minority group targeted by the hate group is better respected in the United States. Maybe it’s easier to bash gay-bashers because it’s pretty acceptable in the US to make fun of homosexuality in the first place. So, when someone sings, “God Hates a Fag” it’s more acceptable to laugh than at a video of a klanner singing, “God Hates a Negro.” It’s even hard to type.

So here I am, conflicted between my love of gays and my love of satire with good production values.

Well! I guess this was a fortutious time for Orgin of Love to come up on iTunes. Love for the gays it is.

Vaguely Related

• You Think Gay Pride, Bimbo
• Holsinger and the Recess Appointment

John M. Shalikashvili, an ex-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently wrote an op-ed for the NY Times affirming his new-found comfortability with gays in the military. He goes on to note that he’s met some actual gay people serving in the actual US military who haven’t completely fucked up. It’s amazing.

Oh, and this:

Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job.

Generous, generous. One of the reasons Shalikashvili is so sure that gays will no longer “undermine the efficacy of the armed forces,” is that he looked at “24 foreign nations, including Israel, Britain and other allies in the fight against terrorism, [which] let gays serve openly, with none reporting morale or recruitment problems.”

You know what else helps morale? Not having to ’surge.’ Or, say, not having more than 8,500 troops in Iraq (and by the way, those numbers drop off quick). I feel like most ardent homophobes would choose bunking with a homo over going to Baghdad.

So, in addition to the older, dumber, gang member and, in some cases, dead recruits, the US Military would like to encourage faggots and lezzies everywhere to come on down and sign your name on the dotted line. Your country loves you!

Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military [NY Times]

kudos to Wonkette.

Vaguely Related

• Westboro Fined $11 Million
• Women and the World: It’s Not Going Well.

But not, like, fabulous.

For those of who that have to go to an office everyday, you may be missing out on the horribleness that is the show Cheaters. The basic premise is as follows:

1. Angry partner (almost always a woman) comes to Cheaters to help her catch philandering man
2. Ridiculous faux secret camera investigation is carried out - with awesome special effects
3. Angry partner confronts hubby and new girlie. Much swearing, finger pointing, and, apparently, a one time stabbing of the host.

I have seen this show a total of once and quickly decided that it was totally insidious, with heavy-handed moralistic tones if not outright religiosity. Lo and behold - the one episode of Cheaters I’ve ever seen was on today! As I flipped past, I felt I recognized the horribly bleached hair of the scorned. I admit to watching past the commercial break, when the best thing ever happened:

Cheaters has a DATING service!

It’s specifically designed for people who hate cheaters. Awesome. Luckily I have a crap email account that I use specifically for times like this.

I’ve never signed up for a dating service before, but this is clearly the best one ever. [Whoa, alarming alert - we'll get back to that in a minute.]

Firstly, it asks me to fill out a basic profile. Strangely, height is the first question asked. Eye color, hair color (no auburn!?!), etc. Then the best thing ever: When asked about my sexual orientation, my only options are “straight” and “bisexual.”

I’m also asked to fill in some random blanks about myself and my dream date. I cannot leave these blank. When asked about my smoking habits, one of the choices I have is “quitting.” When discussing my drinking, however, there is no option for “quitting.” No one likes an bandwagon alkie, I guess.

I’m also asked about my race - one of the choices is NATIVE.

After filling out my profile, I can search for, I guess, for straight and bisexual men. (I wonder if you can be gay if you’re a man. It would seem to play into some awesome fantasies that women are never gay, we just like some “girl time” now and then). Here’s the best part about searching. It shows a picture on the left, and then in the box it displays their name, then their race, then their location. It’s like “Oh thank god, he’s white! Oh. He lives in Hammond.”

Going back in to edit my profile reveals that, man, race and religion are important. They’re the first two “characteristics” I can edit.

But I may not need to do any editing at all. I’ve already gotten a message and a request to chat (the alarming alert above). It’s is not from ‘bemywife,” however, so less alarming than it could be.

The site is powered by DreamMates, so I don’t think everyone on here is from Cheaters TV. Based on the number of men on here only for “intimate encounters,” they certainly don’t seem to be ascribing to the Cheaters form of fidelity. Then again, I’ve got over 600 impossibly perfect matches based on the scant details I provided. Maybe my soon-to-be better half just finished watching a girl cry her little eyes out. Hope springs eternal.

Edit: Then again maybe not. “If you are into that whole ‘people come from monkies evolutionary theory’ dont even bother.”

He really seemed like my type, too.

Vaguely Related

• Voyerism, Stealing from Gay Bashers, and Minors, oh my!!!
• Palin and Couric - Sarah’s No Leo

The Washington Supreme Court today joined the New York Supreme Court in upholding the ban on gay marriage. As New York and Washington seemed like two of the most likely states for gay marriage, anyone on this side of the issue has to be feeling pretty crappy today.

The decision by the court points out that they’re simply ruling on the ability of the legislature to make rules for the state, and not making a judgment on the quality of the law itself. Yet, the court says:

…limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents.

Apparently, adopted children and those raised by same-sex couples (even when one of the parents is the biological parent) aren’t the same as real kids. Thoughts on how this might be extrapolated?

In one of the dissents (there were three, with four justices dissenting), one of the justices points out:

If the DOMA is really about the “sanctity” of marriage, as its title implies, then it is clearly an unconstitutional foray into state-sanctioned religious belief.”

I’m getting a bit sick of the ‘punch to the guts’ feeling when it comes to politics in America.

Here are the links to the decision, if you care to read them. And here is one of what is sure to be many blogs out of The Stranger today.

Update: Also, part of the ruling claims that there is no unequal treatment for gays:

Neither a man nor a woman may marry a person of the same sex.

Unfortunately for gay people, this also means they won’t be able to marry the person they’d like to share their life with. That is the most foolish rationale ever.

Vaguely Related

• Pre-election Shotgun Wedding for Bristol Palin?
• Oh, By the Way? We’re Desperate.