Kick-ass

What I learned from RedIvy today: you don't mess with Frances Martel.

And if the angle from which this particular reader criticizes homosexuality [link for context] is religious... I have to question what kind of God this wrathful evangelical deity really is, and why He is so desperate to smite everyone. Does He have nothing better to do, like create beauty in nature or answer the prayers of the faithful? My Christian God (and His Son), the one I talk to and worship every day, who in name and denomination is the same as yours, is kind, loving, forgiving, and understanding. He interprets sin and deprivation as an exclusive choice of the sinner, and not something thrust upon him from above (or below). Gays and lesbians can engage in sinful debauchery in the same way that straight individuals can, and aren’t considered sinners by default more than any of us are. I do not pretend to read the mind of the Lord, but if I am to believe that whole New Testament thing as the true way to lead one’s life(which I do), I cannot believe that God creates some people more sinful than others, or that there are sins that He is not willing to forgive.

...It is highly irritating to me that any mention of [Rachel] Maddow in the media has to come hand-in-hand with her sexuality, as if it were relevant to her occupation. Read any piece about her success and you’ll see what I mean. Those that abuse the stereotype will claim that she is “asking for it” with her short hair and, uh, eloquence, and all those “masculine” features like “snark” and “education”. Never mind that she rarely engages in discussion of gay and lesbian issues on MSNBC- she’ll talk about them when they’re relevant (she does have an extensive history in gay rights advocacy), but the scope of her political lens is much broader. She was “asking for it,” just for leaving the kitchen and not bowing down to the Valley Girl-esque image of the socially traditional newsgirl. Taking issue with her political beliefs (I myself disagree with her on almost every single point) is completely fair and, I believe, warranted. She’s practically wrong about everything, and it’s her choice to be so. Taking issue with her sexuality- which is neither here nor there in the political world- is disrespectful and uncalled for.

It’s almost as if the more envious elements of the media want to chalk up her success to her sexuality and not her talent, as if she is a product of this new socialist “Affirmative Action” thing and not a respectable pundit. And envy is always a thing to be mocked, traditional or otherwise.

FRANCES MAD. FRANCES SMASH.

...As much as I despise libertarianism -- and boy, do I ever -- I have to admit that the Internet, and the Republican Party, would be better if they had more people like Frances Martel in them. At least, they'd be more entertaining.

McCain opposes gay adoption

Sickening.

Q: President Bush believes that gay couples should not be permitted to adopt children. Do you agree with that?

Mr. McCain: I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no I don’t believe in gay adoption.

Q: Even if the alternative is the kid staying in an orphanage, or not having parents.

Mr. McCain: I encourage adoption and I encourage the opportunities for people to adopt children I encourage the process being less complicated so they can adopt as quickly as possible. And Cindy and I are proud of being adoptive parents.

Q: But your concern would be that the couple should a traditional couple [sic]

Mr. McCain: Yes.

So-called "social issues" aren't normally my purview, but this pisses me off. There are innumerable children out there who desperately need a stable home, and innumerable gay couples out there who could provide them one with love and care. And -- surprise -- there are no psychological issues associated with growing up in a gay household, none. No reasonable person in the 21st century should hold this position; the fact that McCain and other conservative politicians can say this stuff publicly without immediate rebuke and ostracism is a sign that our national discourse is still, in fundamental ways, retarded.

I hate Mondays. Somebody get me a drink.

(Both links via the Washington Independent.)

UPDATE (Thursday): "Actually Senator McCain only kind of opposes gay adoption, and also he doesn't, and it's a state issue anyway, and PLEASE GO AWAY SCARY GAY PEOPLE."

a few thoughts

because i have a final tomorrow morning (my second of four! haaaaaaaaaay, great end of the semester), i want to a share a few thoughts - random, in no particular order, irrespectively, etc - before i go even more insane with academic saturation. (side note: today, in my usual display of pop culture allusions, i confused julia roberts with richard dreyfuss.) to retain some semblance of interest in things i won't be tested on, i've been reading TEH NEWZ constantly. so here's what i'm thinking about, politically and otherwise, seriously and not-so-seriously, before i creep into dementia and sing radiohead until i die:

• KARL ROVE is a jerk. a foul-mouthed, sick, disgusting, perverted jerk. i don't base this assessment on a newly-revealed sexual scandal - who'd have sex with death, anyway? - or a personal encounter. but you know what? giving barack obama "advice" on combating charges of elitism and then promptly criticizing him for those "bitter, cling, guns, antipathy towards other people, blah blah blah" comments of last century suggests a serious lack of human emotion. i bet karl rove is the one that killed that dude hillary clinton supposedly murdered. and then spread the rumors about clinton. and then clubbed kitties and puppies for fun. what an asshole.
• speaking of, MIKE HUCKABEE's a pretty funny dude. he thought he could win the presidency and everything, even though he taxed and spent, made love to "illegals," and didn't have any money other than the currency of The Jesus. so he makes a joke chronicled by our own brian kaufman, and only racists and rednecks laugh. because the joke's about shooting barack obama. i thought it was weird that huckabee's son would lynch a stray dog, but i guess not. the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, i suppose. (my guess is that mike huckabee probably ate the apple, but only after dipping it in sugar and coke and frying it in bacon grease).
• on an unrelated-ish note, BARACK OBAMA is shaping up to be a great general election candidate. hell, he's running like one, and the media loves it. (how do i know? i haven't read anything - except for this, maybe - about HILLARY CLINTON since wednesday, and that was a very bad day for her. more on that later.) at the same time, i think that for all the great things obama will do for our party - bringing heretofore excluded demographics (read: the youth) into the process, establishing a liberal majority for the rest of time - we might have a slight problem winning. time's swampland has a good post (and link!) on obama's electoral road map to winning the white house. i'm confident we'll win. but the trends in florida and ohio worry me, especially when hillary's strongly positioned to PWN john mccain in the rust belt and my VERY OWN sunshine state. i still think he should pick her as his VP. it'd solve so many problems at once, and it might make him much more appealing to all those racists the media loves to talk about.
• the SAME-SEX MARRIAGE RULING is an incredible thing, and i must say that i've never been more proud of a state i've come to pettily revile. (for clarification: i hate california because everybody from california just LOVES california, and i find it very irritating. fucking go to stanford and stop complaining about the weather, okay?) i hope it initiates a culture war, because i think we'll win. with "queer eye for the straight guy," andy dick, and ellen degeneres on our side - not to mention TGI friday's best patron ever - we're sure to beat back the religious right that doesn't have a candidate. at the same time, it'll be interesting to see how the dems and mccain run on the issue, because their positions are pretty similar. mccain will use harsh language to appeal to the crazies, but whatever. he won't be able to raise his arm in fury.
• JOHN EDWARDS endorsed obama. surprise! come on, everyone should have seen that coming. he called hillary a corporate democrat and regularly admonished her for her "support" of lobbyists (even though he took contributions from state lobbyists, those who represent and defend lobbyists, and former lobbyists). so he endorsed the similarly "anti-lobbyist" candidate, heralded themes of HOPE and CHANGE, etc. not sure if it'll do anything, but the media loves to talk about racist white people and how john edwards might help barack obama win them over.
• like many feminists, i, too, feel betrayed by NARAL. and it isn't because they chose to support a man instead of a woman; it's because they chose to support a one pro-choice candidate over another. obama and clinton have similar records on choice - though i think hers is stronger than his, if only because of his tactical "present" votes and his relatively short time in public life. so why endorse? why not wait until the end of the primary season? three weeks does not a winning pro-life candidate make, and a negative campaign against mccain doesn't necessitate a positive campaign for the obviously pro-choice democratic nominee. to me, the endorsement smacks of disrespect to senator clinton, effectively adding to the chorus of those irresponsible pundits that want to end her candidacy before she does. and it's made even worse by senator clinton's more than admirable record on agitation for women's rights.

and thus, in my mind, i've come full circle. because i need to study for my final on the history of women, gender, and sexuality in europe. onward!