Demon In The White House

I rarely use this blog to spew the word "hate". Oh, sure. I proclaim my dislike, my abhorrence, my loathing, my despising, my fed-up-ness and a few other things, but I rarely use the word hate. I feel myself getting closer, however. Especially when the topic of Rush Limbaugh and whatever comes out of his ridiculous mouth comes up.

See, according to the fine folks over yonder at Politico, yesterday on his radio show (which is listened to by a frighteningly large number of people who seem to really enjoy and agree with what he has to say) he made reference to some pictures of President Barry that had been posted on The Drudge Report website. What he said was idiotic at best. He said, "...folks, these pictures, they look demonic. And I don't say this lightly. There are a couple pictures, and the eyes, I'm not saying anything here, but just look. It is strange that these pictures would be released...It's very, very, very strange. An American president has never had facial expressions like this. At least we've never seen photos of an American president with facial expressions like this. "

What. The. What. Seriously? Demonic? What is that supposed to mean? Was he referencing a Harris Poll taken earlier this year which indicated that 24% of Republicans believed that President Barry was the Antichrist? Or is he just grasping at any straw that he can to try and bring down more Democrats (which will inevitably happen) in the upcoming election? Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of Democrats who do deserve to be booted out of whatever office they're in. There are. There are a lot of Republicans who need to get the boot as well. But what is Rush Limbaugh's rationale for saying something so incredibly asinine? I guess only he knows.

First of all, President Barry has got to be the most photographed President in history. He's on TV every freaking day. And when he's on vacation, we (the public) are inundated with photos of him eating ice cream the entire time! I don't care that he eats ice cream! Why do I need 57 different photos from 36 different angles and 12 commentators giving me the low down on what flavor he chose? I don't remember it being like this with other Presidents. Did we have a million photographs of Bush flying all over the place all the time? It doesn't seem like we did. (Then again, Bush would have never been accused of looking demonic because he always looked so damned clueless that that's all anyone could ever focus on.)

The point here is that when you're having your photo taken all the time by a bazillion different outlets, the chances increase that you're going to have a few that are not so flattering. That doesn't mean you're demonic or possessed or anything. And it certainly doesn't mean that Rush Limbaugh should be trying to rile up the inexplicable masses that listen to his drivel every day.

My second point was that since when are everyone's facial expressions all the same? Or since when can they all fit into the same category? I'm pretty sure that Rush probably has some expressions that aren't seen anywhere else on this earth. (That's a good thing, in case you were wondering.) It's just a ridiculous thing to say. I wish that someone with so much radio time and (I hate to say it) so much power to sway the opinions of the meeker and weaker among us would use his pulpit for something useful instead of fear mongering. That's all. (And by the way, is he going to tell us that the photo of him doesn't look a little demonic? Geez, at least President Barry isn't spewing smoke out of his orifices. Though that would be a million dollar shot if anyone were to come up with one. I'll give you that.)

There Are Not Always Two Sides

Do both "sides" of an issue always need to be presented when covering a story in a journalistic or media realm? Like when you're covering a bunch of recent suicides by teenagers who were bullied because they were gay. Do you really need to run the opinion of folks who are anti-gay? I'm not so sure that you do. The Washington Post, surprisingly, felt a little differently.

For some reason, on National Coming Out Day (for whatever that is worth, as it would have been bad on any day), The Washington Post felt the need to run an editorial from a one Tony Perkins (not of Psycho fame). Mr. Perkins is the president of the Family Research Council and seems to be very against those who are gay. Naturally, his editorial, while not condoning any of the bullying that goes on, made it clear that he felt that "...homosexual activist groups like GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network) are exploiting these tragedies to push their agenda of demanding not only tolerance of homosexual individuals, but active affirmation of homosexual conduct and their efforts to redefine the family." Uhh, OK?

I'm kind of not even sure what that means. I don't know that it can be considered "exploiting a tragedy" to send the message that people need to be tolerant of other people. That seems like a message that doesn't have a whole lot of exploitation in it. So, even though gay kids are getting bullied to the point where they off themselves, we still shouldn't send the message that being gay is all right. That seems...um...idiotic.

But what is more idiotic is how The Washington Post handled being called on the matter of running his editorial on National Coming Out Day. According to the huffy folks over at The Huffington Post, GLAAD made mention via Twitter (good Lord...) of The Washington Post's giving editorial space to Mr. Perkins on that particular day. (By the way, I don't have so much of a problem with The Post allowing the editorial to begin with, but it didn't really have anything to do with bullying. If they wanted to allow him space to voice his opinion, that's fine, but I'm thinking that it probably should have been on the topic at hand and not just what Mr. Perkins wanted to address.)

For some reason, The Washington Post decided to respond in an odd fashion. They Twittered back (good Lord...) with this:

They're working to cover both sides? Of...bullying? No, wait. That can't be it. They're working to cover both sides of...teen suicide? No, wait. That can't be it, either. They're working to cover both sides of...oh, for cryin' out loud, I give up! I don't know that there are two sides of the subject of kids who get bullied might off themselves. I think that's a pretty one-sided discussion. Sure, there are two sides to the whole being gay in the first place debate. I get that. But that isn't what they were talking about. They were talking about gay teens being bullied to the point where they did themselves in. There aren't two sides to that and giving an open forum to someone to talk about what he believes are the evils of homosexuality under the guise of it being the "other side" is simply insane.

Why couldn't Mr. Perkins simply focused on the evils of bullying and how, since it's irrational to think that we're ever going to be able to put a stop to it, we can help kids from becoming so despondent over it that they want to die? Why couldn't he have gone with that angle? Why the continued attack upon those who are homosexual? The point was the bullying. Can he not get off of his anti-gay soapbox for just one day? Seriously? Please.

She's Not Me

Who is managing wacky Christine O'Donnell's campaign for Senate over there in Delaware? (I think that she's representing the MILF party.) I'd really like to hear their reasoning for her latest TV ad, as I'm not so sure that you need to automatically assume that everyone who watches TV is going to be aware of the fact that she claims to have dabbled in witchcraft (whatever the hell that means) when she was younger and therefore, that justifies having that disclaimer right off the bat. Wait. What?

Correct. See, back in October of 1999 when Bill Maher had her on his show, Politically Incorrect, she claimed "I dabbled into witchcraft. I never joined a coven. But I did, I did. … I dabbled into witchcraft. I hung around people who were doing these things. I’m not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do....One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn’t know it. I mean, there’s little blood there and stuff like that...We went to a movie and then had a midnight picnic on a satanic altar." Uh-huh. OK, then. Since I've already been over this, I'll direct you over to the folks at Think Progress for the video of that whole debacle.

Now, maybe you hear that clip and think that she's a nutjob. Maybe you hear that clip and you think that you're not going to vote for anyone that whack-a-do. You know what I'm guessing that you're not thinking? I'm guessing that you're not thinking that she's really a witch. You know. Because of the whole witches not being real sort of thing. Yeah, that. But she apparently seems to think differently. She seems to think that it is really important to point out that she is not a witch. Oh, for cryin' out loud.

So, here's her first ad. First thing she says is, "I'm not a witch." Uh, yeah. We know. No one is. But seriously, if you hadn't heard the whole deal about her and her witchy-poo dabblings and then that commercial came on, wouldn't your head spin around just a little bit as you exclaimed, "What the hell is she talking about?!" I'm pretty sure that's what's going to happen with several people over there. Does the ad get better after that? Not really. Next thing she says is, "I'm nothing you've heard." See, I don't know about that one. I've heard she's a little cuckoo and I'm inclined to agree a little bit with that assessment. But what I won't agree with is what she says next. She states, "I'm you."

Yeah. See, you're really not. You're really not me. I'm not the one who stated that I believed that folks shouldn't masturbate. I'm not the one who said she wanted to stop the country from having sex. I'm not the one who said that masturbation was the equivalent of committing adultery. I'm not certainly not the one who said, "We took the Bible and prayer out of public schools. Now we're having weekly shootings. We had the 60s sexual revolution, and now people are dying of AIDS." (I don't even know what that means.) And I don't buy into the theory that "American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains." (Again, I don't even know what that means.)

All of that? That's not me. That's her. And it scares the hell out of me to think that she could be sitting in the Senate helping to decide what is best for the country.

At Least He's In Jail For Something

It was fifteen years ago yesterday that OJ Simpson was inexplicably (completely without splick) found not guilty in the deaths of two people that he so obviously seemed to have killed. Let's revisit that insane miscarriage of justice by watching the video of the verdict below. While I am glad that the man now languishes in a jail cell somewhere in Nevada, he couldn't have been put there soon enough if you're asking me.

A Whale of an Idea

Perhaps you've heard about the unfortunate death of the trainer at SeaWorld, a one Dawn Brancheau, after she was grabbed from her poolside platform and thrashed around in the water by a killer whale named Tilikum. I'm not trying to sound insensitive or anything, but it's not like we couldn't have seen this coming, especially since Tilikum has been involved in the deaths of at least two other people over the past 20-ish years (even though one of those deaths was totally the fault of the human involved). It's right there in his name. Killer whale. It's not like he was going around calling himself Benign Whale or anything like that. Killer whale. Seems like a no brainer.

What I'm finding extremely entertaining is the various responses after this tragic (yet predictable) event. Man on the street interviews are always good for amusement. I heard one guy say that the "whole system needs to be revamped". The whole system of what exactly? Keeping 12,000 pound creatures in the equivalent of a bathtub and making them do wacky stunts which end up soaking enthralled participants who love nothing more than to watch a tricky orca? That system? Um, OK. I suppose.

The huffy folks over at The Huffington Post alerted us to the fact that following Ms. Brancheau's death, Shamu's Twitter account was shut down. Wait. What now?

Correct. Shamu, the big ol' killer whale that has become the synonymous poster name/child for captive and made to perform orcas, is no longer posting to his Twitter account. ::: sigh ::: Good Lord, people. Did you really think that it was the damned whale that was tweeting?! What kind of person is it who follows Shamu on Twitter? Or ANY animal for that matter? It's not the actual animal who is updating! You know that, right? Right?! Oh, never mind.

But here's the one that I just love, love, love beyond belief. Ready? Again from The Huffington Post, here's the headline: American Family Association: Stone To Death Killer Whale Who Killer Trainer. What the what?

Correct. The American Family Association a "...religious right group, is urging that Tillikum (Tilly), the killer whale that killed a trainer at SeaWorld Orlando, be put down, preferably by stoning." They want to...to...stone the whale? Wh...why....why is that? Well, because the Bible says they should. It does? Apparently so.

They seem to be relying on a passage from Exodus 21:28 which reads "Says the ancient civil code of Israel, "When an ox gores a man or woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner shall not be liable." But...but...but that's talking about an OX. This was a whale. A whale. Not an ox. But for some reason, the AFA equates an ox and a whale. I can't imagine why, as they are clearly nothing alike.

This seemingly whack-a-do group goes on to say that "...the Scripture soberly warns, if one of your animals kills a second time because you didn't kill it after it claimed its first human victim, this time you die right along with your animal." Wait. Who dies right along with the animal? Who in the heck owns the killer whale? SeaWorld? Does that mean all of the employees get stoned as well? No, wait, that wouldn't make sense. What about stock? Does SeaWorld have stock? Are the stockholders going to get pelted in that instance? Seems a bit extreme. I mean, if we're going to start stoning people in this country, can't we start with those Wall Street fellows? You know, just to try it out and all.

The AFA backs up that assertion by citing Exodus 21:29 which says something to the effect of "the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death." Basically, the theory is that if your ox is out and kills someone and you don't stone your ox and then it goes out and does it again, you're just as liable as the ox is. Theoretically, that makes sense, but only right up until you get to the "also shall be put to death" part. That's a bit extreme. Usually.

But let me just ask this: Let's say that we were to go along with the kooky beliefs of the AFA and we now need to stone this whale to death. What, exactly, are we supposed to stone him with? Wouldn't it just be easier to drain the tank? You'd need boulders or something of the equivalent in order to stone a killer whale, wouldn't you? And that would involve some sort of crane and/or derrick, I'd imagine. Perhaps a trebuchet/catapult. This is starting to sound really old-timey. Like the days of King Arthur or something. If it only weren't for the fact that we were talking about doing all of this to a killer whale, it wouldn't be so ridiculous!

Look, you can't kill the whale. It's not the whale's fault. The whale was doing what it does and what it does is be a whale. I'm going to have to assume that the term "killer" wasn't just some catchy moniker that someone came up with for no reason. It's named that for a reason. It wasn't a secret. It's not like the trainer didn't know that it was a killer whale. They didn't tell her "You'll be working with this animal here. It's a (mumble, mumble) whale!" I look at it this way: Three people (one of which was to blame) killed in twenty years? Seems like the people are getting off easy in this situation. It kind of seems like I'd think it would have been more given the circumstances and all. I'm just sayin'. Something to think about. Something other than stoning the whale to death, you morons.

A Parent Strikes Again

Today's post follows in the steps of yesterday's post in which we discovered how one parent (one who is likely a moron and who also likely just enjoys stirring things up) can cause the entire system to grind to a halt. We discovered how if just ONE person is "offended" by something or thinks that there is something wrong with something that the way that the complainer and the complainee think is the best way to handle it is to completely overreact and remove the "offending" item from the access of everyone, even those who are not offended. That's what we discovered. And it was through that discovery that we learned that there are just some pain in the ass people out there who want to up-end the system under the guise of "being offended". Today is another one of those stories. Please don't let that keep you from reading. It's just as idiotic as yesterday's, I promise.

Our post today takes us to Culpeper County Public Schools in (surprise) Culpeper, Virginia. It's there that we learn via the Star Exponent that the Anne Frank diary entitled "The Diary of a Young Girl: The Definitive Edition"...will no longer be assigned to CCPS students". That is according to a one Jim Allen who is the school system's director of instruction. Great. So we're banning The Diary of Anne Frank now? Why is this? Oh, right. Because of the vagina passage. Wait. The what now?

I had the same reaction. What vagina passage? See, apparently there are two versions of The Diary of Anne Frank. There's the version where she's hiding out in an attic with her family for almost two years (you know, trying to avoid being taken to a concentration camp by the Nazis and all) and then there's the version where she's hiding out in an attic with her family for almost two years, trying to avoid the same fate as described above. The thing is that in the second version, there are apparently some "...sexually suggestive references". Uh-huh. The girl was 13, right? And there were only SOME sexually suggestive references? OK. And that's a problem?

It shouldn't be. It shouldn't be a problem. But guess what? It was a problem. For A parent. That's right. For ONE parent it was a problem. The problem was what was touted in several news stories that I read about this as "the vagina passage". Now, these publications don't have a problem printing the phrase "vagina passage" no matter how ridiculous it sounds. But do you think that any of them could actually print what the "vagina passage" was? No. Apparently not. Thank goodness for some thing called The Raw Story (which dubs their publication as "an alternative news nexus") that actually saw fit to include what was so freaking offensive to A parent. (It's a good thing that they found it via Valerie Strauss at The Answer Sheet otherwise we might never have known.

Ahem! The offending "vagina passage": "There are little folds of skin all over the place, you can hardly find it. The little hole underneath is so terribly small that I simply can't imagine how a man can get in there, let alone how a whole baby can get out!" That's it?

Wait a minute. That's it? That is "the vagina passage"? What is wrong with that, exactly? That seems like a perfectly reasonable for a thirteen year old to think and to write. I totally remember wondering how that whole birth thing was possible (as it is akin to shoving a pot roast through one's nostril). There's nary a hint of anything fictitious in that statement. It's just as she describes. I have no qualms with it.

But here's the thing: Let's say I was a moron and I did have a qualm with it. We could even say that I had qualms. Why is it that I can't just ask if my kid can read the less "seedy" version? Why is it that I have to go in there and say that I don't want this book taught at all to any of the children? By the way, I'm using the term "children" extremely loosely here as we are talking about eighth graders in this situation. Yes! Eighth graders! Some moron has a problem out there with their eighth grader reading a passage which very vaguely and extremely tamely describes a vagina and the functions that one may or may not believe that it has the capacity to perform!

What is it about our society that if one person complains, everyone has to be affected? I don't get that. But that's what happened. According to the article linked above in the Star Exponent "Citing a parent’s concern over the sexual nature of the vagina passage in the definitive edition, Allen said school officials immediately chose to pull this version and use an alternative copy." Please note the usage of the term "A parent". I'm not kidding, nor exaggerating, when I say that it was because of ONE complaint. ONE.

The article continues with the aforementioned Mr. Allen stating, “What we have asked is that this particular edition will not be taught...I’m happy when parents get involved with these things because it lets me know that they are really looking and have their kids’ best interest (in mind). And that’s where good parenting and good teaching comes in." Hey, I'm happy when parents get involved as well. I'm not happy when parents interfere with the rest of the learning potential of the rest of the class. But I agree that when parents are looking into what their kids are doing, the (assumedly) have their kid's best interest in mind. But I'm going to have to disagree that this sort of a reaction could be defined as "good parenting" OR "good teaching" because I don't think that it's either one.

I'm curious as to what the response of this particular school would have been if there hadn't been another alternative to this book that was essentially the same book (only with less referencing of said vaginas and all). Would they have just banned the book altogether? That seems rash. After all, this is a book about a thirteen year old girl who ultimately dies at the hands of the Nazis in a concentration camp. It's not like it's light reading material at all. If anything, I'd like to thing that the "vagina passage" kind of lightened things up a little bit. But I'm apparently the only one who would like to think anything like that of the sort. Morons.

This has got to stop. We cannot keep altering the course of the masses because one individual complains. This is not setting a good precedence AT ALL. Man, I wish I had a kid in public school so that I could just try being a pain in the ass and see what I could get away with. Maybe then I'd start to understand the thinking patterns of these school administrators that simply cave with every "offended" parent that presents an issue before them. Because as it stands now, I don't understand a thing about it other than it's completely moronic and is going to doom us eventually. And probably sooner rather than later.